# Microbial functional diversity: From concepts to applications

Arthur Escalas, Lauren Hale, James W. Voordeckers, Yunfeng Yang, Mary K. Firestone, Lisa Alvarez-Cohen, Jizhong Zhou

► To cite this version:

Arthur Escalas, Lauren Hale, James W. Voordeckers, Yunfeng Yang, Mary K. Firestone, et al., Microbial functional diversity: From concepts to applications. Ecology and Evolution, 2019, 9 (20), pp.12000–12016. 10.1002/ece3.5670. hal-02434141

HAL Id: hal-02434141

https://hal.science/hal-02434141

Submitted on 7 Jun 2021

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>
# Microbial functional diversity: From concepts to applications

Arthur Escalas<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> ID | Lauren Hale<fnref n="3" /> | James W. Voordeckers<fnref n="3" /> | Yunfeng Yang<fnref n="4" /> |

Mary K. Firestone<fnref n="5" /> | Lisa Alvarez-Cohen<fnref n="6" /> | Jizhong Zhou<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="4" />,<fnref n="7" />

## Correspondence

Arthur Escalas, MARBEC, CNRS, Ifremer, IRD, University of Montpellier, Place Eugène Bataillon, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France.

Email: arthur.escalas@gmail.com

## Funding information

U.S. Department of Energy; Office of Science; Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Grant/Award Number: DE-AC02-05CH11231; Genomics: GTL Foundational Science; OBER Biological Systems Research on the Role of Microbial Communities in Carbon Cycling Program, Grant/Award Number: DE-SC0004601 and DE-SC0010570; National Science Foundation of China, Grant/Award Number: 41371256; Collaborative Innovation Center for Regional Environmental Quality; State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control at Tsinghua University; U.S. National Science Foundation MacroSystems Biology Program, Grant/Award Number: EF-1065844; National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Grant/Award Number: P42ES004705; NSF, Grant/Award Number: CBET-1336709

## Abstract

Functional diversity is increasingly recognized by microbial ecologists as the essential link between biodiversity patterns and ecosystem functioning, determining the trophic relationships and interactions between microorganisms, their participation in biogeochemical cycles, and their responses to environmental changes. Consequently, its definition and quantification have practical and theoretical implications. In this opinion paper, we present a synthesis on the concept of microbial functional diversity from its definition to its application. Initially, we revisit the original definition of functional diversity, highlighting two fundamental aspects, the ecological unit under study and the functional traits used to characterize it. Then, we discuss how the particularities of the microbial world disallow the direct application of the concepts and tools developed for macroorganisms. Next, we provide a synthesis of the literature on the types of ecological units and functional traits available in microbial functional ecology. We also provide a list of more than 400 traits covering a wide array of environmentally relevant functions. Lastly, we provide examples of the use of functional diversity in microbial systems based on the different units and traits discussed herein. It is our hope that this paper will stimulate discussions and help the growing field of microbial functional ecology to realize a potential that thus far has only been attained in microbial ecology.

## KEYWORDS

functional diversity, functional traits, microbial communities, theoretical frameworks of diversity, trait-based ecology

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹MARBEC, CNRS, Ifremer, IRD, University of Montpellier, Montpellier Cedex 5, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Institute for Environmental Genomics and Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Water Management Research Unit, SJVASC, USDA-ARS, Parlier, CA, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA</footnote>
# 1 | INTRODUCTION

Microbial communities play key roles in nearly every biogeochemical process that makes Earth inhabitable (Falkowski, Fenchel, & Delong, 2008). They mediate vital ecosystem processes such as primary production, decomposition, nutrient cycling, climate regulation, carbon storage, disease propagation, and pollutant transformation (Ducklow, 2008; Giller et al., 2004). Atop of that, microbes inhabiting the body of multicellular organisms are essential for the well-being and survival of their hosts (Koskella, Hall, & Metcalf, 2017; McFall-Ngai, 2015). Microbes exert major influences on ecological processes across space and time, owing to the fact that they represent the richest collection of chemical and molecular diversity in nature and their ability to interact and maintain dynamic relationships among themselves and with higher organisms.

The diversity of functions performed by organisms within ecosystems, coined as functional diversity, has been recognized as the missing link between biodiversity patterns and ecosystem functions (Bardgett & Van Der Putten, 2014; Lamarque, Lavorel, Mouchet, & Quetier, 2014; Loreau et al., 2001; Mouillot, Villéger, Scherer-Lorenzen, & Mason, 2011) and is increasingly recognized as a core driver of ecosystem services (Carrara et al., 2015; Chapin et al., 2000; Díaz, Fargione, Chapin, & Tilman, 2006). There is an increasing recognition that patterns of functional diversity may provide a more powerful test of theory than taxonomic richness (Lamanna et al., 2014; Louca et al., 2018). However, despite many recommendations for more functionally oriented studies from leading microbial ecologists (Barberán et al., 2014; Boon et al., 2014; Burke, Steinberg, Rusch, Kjelleberg, & Thomas, 2011; Dinsdale et al., 2008; Fierer, Barberán, & Laughlin, 2014; Green, Bohannan, & Whitaker, 2008; Krause et al., 2014), microbial functional ecology still lags behind its microbial counterpart. This is surprising considering it has been over 35 years since the first publication of a functional diversity index for microbes in 1981 (Troussellier & Legendre, 1981). Furthermore, it appears today ironical that before the molecular revolution traditional microbiologists identified taxa based on functional traits and phenotypic characteristics (Buchanan & Gibbons, 1975), while presently we attempt to infer the functional characteristics of taxa from their genomes and phylogeny (Aßhauer, Wemheuer, Daniel, & Meinicke, 2015; Langille et al., 2013). As a consequence, microbial functional ecology has not yet developed into a mature research field based on solid and consistent concepts which is notably due to inconsistencies in the way microbial functional diversity is defined and estimated (Bodelier, 2011; Krause et al., 2014).

In this opinion paper, we discuss the concept of microbial functional diversity, from its definition to its application, to generate ecological insights and better understand the functioning of microbial systems. Initially, we revisit to the original definition of functional diversity, highlighting two fundamental aspects, the ecological unit

under study and the functional traits used to characterize it. Then, we discuss how the particularities of the microbial world disallow the direct application of the concepts and tools developed for macroorganisms. Next, we provide a synthesis of the literature on the types of ecological units and functional traits available in microbial functional ecology. Lastly, we provide examples of the use of functional diversity in microbial systems based on the different units and traits discussed herein.

# 2 | CHALLENGES IN CHARACTERIZING MICROBIAL FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY

## 2.1 | General concept of functional diversity

Functional approaches for estimating biodiversity are based on the general premise that to understand the linkage between biodiversity and ecosystems functioning, the functions realized by organisms in natural systems are of greater interest than their identity. The term "functional diversity" has been widely used but most studies simply relied on presumed intuitive understanding of the term's meaning and thus there is no uniform definition, particularly in microbial ecology (Table S1, Petchey & Gaston, 2006). Carmona, de Bello, Mason, and Lepš (2016) provided a simple and operational definition of functional diversity as the "variation of traits between organisms," which is "estimated as the variation of *traits* in the functional space occupied by an *ecological unit*." Here, rather ambiguous notions appear of crucial importance for defining microbial functional diversity, ecological unit, and functional trait.

An ecological unit corresponds to any scale at which it is meaningful to estimate functional diversity, such as individual organisms, populations, species (or OTUs), communities, meta-communities, geographical regions, and continents (Carmona et al., 2016). For macroorganisms, the ecological unit of choice is often the community and its functional diversity can be estimated considering the range, distribution, and variation of the traits carried by the species it contains, or the average trait values across species (i.e., community-aggregated traits). Whatever the chosen ecological unit, it is now generally agreed that conceptualizing, defining, measuring, and ultimately understanding functional diversity depend on the measurement of functional traits (Mlambo, 2014; Petchey & Gaston, 2006), and the term "functional ecology" tends to be replaced by the more precise term "trait-based ecology" (Shipley et al., 2016). The commonly used definition of functional traits describes those that "impact fitness of an organism via its effect on growth, reproduction, or survival" (Violle et al., 2007). This definition and its more recent variations (Carmona et al., 2016; Violle et al., 2017) state that functional traits should be measurable at the individual level, which is rarely an option for microorganisms. While quantitative traits (e.g., leaf area, morphological characteristics) are measured at the individual level and then averaged to estimate the trait value for the species, qualitative traits (e.g., phenological or behavioral) are more often estimated at the species level. This approach produces taxa-traits matrices,
that depict the functional attributes of taxa, which are then com-
bined with taxa-site matrices representing communities composi-
tion in order to estimate the functional diversity of communities
using ad hoc indices (Mouchet, Villéger, Mason, & Mouillot, 2010;
Villéger, Mason, & Mouillot, 2008).

In summary, functional approaches use traits to describe the role
of ecological units in the functioning of natural systems. In the fol-
lowing sections, we will see why the definitions of functional diver-
sity and functional traits currently used in microbial ecology do not
fit with the particularities of the microbial world and which aspects
should be taken into consideration in order to improve our ability to
characterize microbial functional diversity.

## 2.2 | Toward a trait-based approach of microbial functional diversity

Biodiversity is generally seen as a triad composed of taxonomic,
phylogenetic, and functional diversity. Taxonomic and phyloge-
netic microbial diversities are both estimated using a single, highly
conserved, marker genes (e.g., 16S rRNA for bacteria and archaea,
ITS for fungi, and 18S rRNA for microbial eukaryotes; Findley et al.,
2013). However, the wide range of traits and ecological strategies
observed in microbes cannot be summarized by a single gene, as the
depth of phylogenetic conservation varies across microbial traits
(Goberna & Verdú, 2016) and depends on their complexity (Martiny,
Jones, Lennon, & Martiny, 2015). For instance, simple traits that in-
volve few functional genes tend to occur at a shallow depth in phy-
logenetic trees and are often not shared by all members of a given
taxon (Martiny et al., 2015). For instance, the ability to produce alka-
line phosphatase is encoded by a single gene (Torriani-Gorini, Yagil,
& Silver, 1994). Furthermore, as suggested by Young (2016), simple
traits are more likely to be carried on phages, plasmids, or transpo-
sons, further facilitating modification of microbial genomes at or
below the species level through horizontal gene transfer or HGT
(Mourkas et al., 2019; Polz, Hunt, Preheim, & Weinreich, 2006). On
the contrary, complex traits that involve multiple functional genes
tend to be conserved at a high rank in the phylogeny (Martiny et al.,
2015). Altogether, these considerations highlight the limited func-
tional resolution provided by the single-gene (16S, ITS, and 18S)
vision of microbial biodiversity, and the need for more functional-
ity-oriented, trait-based approaches (Allison, 2012; Bodelier, 2011;
Fierer et al., 2014; Green et al., 2008; Hillebrand & Matthiessen,
2009; Krause et al., 2014; Litchman, Edwards, & Klausmeier, 2015;
Nemergut et al., 2013; Shade & Handelsman, 2012; Shade et al.,
2012; Wallenstein & Hall, 2012).

## 2.3 | Differences between micro- and macroorganisms in a functional context and limitations of current theoretical frameworks

There are some concepts that pertain to biodiversity and func-
tional relationships in both macro- and microbial ecology. For

example, the positive effect of biodiversity on ecosystem func-
tioning is usually attributed to two nonexclusive mechanisms, the
selection (or sampling) and the complementarity effects (Cardinale
et al., 2006; Loreau, Mouquet, & Gonzalez, 2003; Loreau et al.,
2001). To put it simply, selection effect reflects the influence of a
single hyper competitive species on the overall community func-
tion, while complementarity effect depends on the presence of
species with complementary traits and results from resource par-
titioning or facilitation among them. Both concepts relate directly
to the fact that organisms' traits determine their impact on eco-
logical process under study.

But, there are prominent differences between micro- and mac-
roorganisms that prevent direct transfer of ecological theories and
concepts. These include the small size of individual microbes that
contribute to their greater sensitivity to environmental change, their
faster metabolic, and growth rates, but also the colonial growth of
microbes which is opposed to the unitary construction of most mac-
roorganisms (Plante, 2017). Beside these general considerations,
microbial functional ecology faces several major challenges that pre-
vent the direct application of concepts and methods developed for
macroorganisms.

In functional ecology of macroorganisms, the traits are often
measured at the species level, a concept whose existence is highly
debated for microbes (Gevers et al., 2005; McLaren & Callahan,
2018). The classic approach in microbial ecology was based on a
similar unit, the isolated strain (i.e., the colony formed by a single
cell), and the picture of the community was constructed using the
taxonomic classification of the isolated strains. It is worth noting
that the species is still used as the reference unit in the fields of
pathogenic bacteriology and food microbiology. Nonetheless,
modern molecular microbial ecologists are using a proxy, the oper-
ating taxonomic unit (OTU), that is defined by grouping sequences
amplified from a single marker gene (e.g., 16S, 18S, ITS) using
DNA extracted at the community level (Konopka, 2009; Schloss
& Westcott, 2011). Recently, amplicon sequence variants (ASV)
have been proposed as replacement of OTUs in microbial ecology,
but ASV share similar limitations as OTUs in a functional context
(Callahan, McMurdie, & Holmes, 2017; Glassman & Martiny, 2018).
Hence, the unit assayed in molecular microbial ecology is the com-
munity, and its individual components are identified a posteriori.

The species or OTU unit is also problematic because it re-
quires a library matching traits to genes or OTUs and it neglects
intraspecific variability. Most environmentally important microbes
have yet to be cultivated, and most functional traits can only be
validated using culturable taxa. Consequently, limited physiologi-
cal, physical, and metabolic information is available for assessing
functional diversity of individual taxa (Schnoes, Brown, Dodevski,
& Babbitt, 2009; Turaev & Rattei, 2016) and inference of function
from taxonomy/phylogeny may only apply to specialized and well
conserved functions, such as methanogenesis (Goberna & Verdú,
2016). The existence of HGT (Polz et al., 2006) and the poorly de-
fined concept of prokaryotic species (Gevers et al., 2005) make
such a linkage even more difficult. Based on the metabolic or
physiological traits measured on culturable taxa, many of these
traits differ from one taxon to another and for most functions
there exists little-to-no taxonomic resolution (Louca et al., 2018;
Martiny et al., 2015). The functional approach, especially when
applied to microbes, addresses the problem of taxa-traits associa-
tions by assessing the community as a multivariate and continuous
distribution of traits. Doing so, one could characterize communi-
ties using the frequency of different trait values and forget about
taxonomic diversity.

Another challenge is presented from the fundamental differ-
ences in the nature of the traits measured. Indeed, macroorganisms
traits are often constitutive, that is, continuously expressed, and
exist in the ecosystem as long as the organism is alive (e.g., the shape
of a plant's leaf or the size of a fish's mouth). While this can also
be the case in microbes, for instance in bacterial cells that possess
pili or phytoplankton organisms with hard shells, the expression of
microbial traits tends to be more directly related to their environ-
ment. Indeed, the link between genotype and phenotype is narrower
in microbes than macroorganisms (Dutilh et al., 2013; Tamura &
D'haeseleer, 2008). Hence, many microbial traits are genetically reg-
ulated (e.g., metabolic pathways, biofilm formation, and virulence)
and their induction dependent on population size, cell activity, and
environmental conditions.

Despite the above-mentioned constraints, microbes likely repre-
sent the best system to apply functional approaches. On one hand,
defining species is controversial if not impossible because of gene
transfers and asexual reproduction, the diversity is astonishing and
sampling constraints make it difficult to measure traits and functions.
On the other hand, functional redundancy is widespread, the relative
simplicity of microbial physiology facilitates the mapping of genes to
functions and novel sequencing methods allow the documentation of
many genes simultaneously. The functional approach may thus appear
as a solution to reduce the complexity of microbial systems and better
understand their functioning. It is worth noting that the field of mi-
crobial functional ecology is pretty new and it is not common to apply
function diversity measures to characterize microbial communities.

3 | DEFINING MICROBIAL FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY

Here, we do not suggest a universal definition of microbial functional
diversity as it appears that there is no such thing. Instead, we present
synthesis of the literature suggesting that two visions of microbial
functional diversity have emerged, which mostly differ in the eco-
logical unit on which traits are measured. Some authors propose to
measure traits at the taxa level while others suggest that measuring
traits directly at the community level is more relevant. In the follow-
ing sections, we will discuss the rationale between both approaches
along with the required data and the insights that could be gained.
By clarifying the debate about microbial functional diversity esti-
mation, we should be able to go beyond simply "studying microbial
functional diversity" and move toward a more precise understanding

of the factors shaping functionality of microbial communities at vari-
ous scales.

3.1 | Functional units in microbial ecology

3.1.1 | Taxa-centered approaches

In microbial ecology, the taxon-centered approach has been termed "genome-centric" or "organism-based" (Alivisatos et al., 2015; Prosser, 2015; Turaev & Rattei, 2016), but it is conceptually similar to what is currently done in macrobial functional ecology and requires the same type of data, that is, "taxa-traits" matrices. However, as highlighted in previous sections, such data are difficult to obtain for microbes using current methods. Developing such approaches would undoubtedly provide valuable insights into the functional structure of the micro- bial world. For instance, one could represent the functional niche of microbial taxa as proposed by Hutchinson (1957), as a multidimen- sional hypervolume in which each axis is a trait (Lennon, Aanderud, Lehmkuhl, & Schoolmaster, 2012). Doing so, we could better under- stand ecological strategies and processes underlying community pat- terns in an environmental context (Green et al., 2008; Nemergut et al., 2013), tackle questions related to the niche versus neutral theory debate, test the linkage between phylogeny and function (Prosser, 2015), determine which functions exhibit higher or lower functional redundancy (Yachi & Loreau, 1999), or identify functional trade-offs or covariation between traits. Delineating the functional niche of taxa rather than the potential of the community will allow us to deter- mine who is doing what in the community and thus to better identify vulnerable communities (i.e., communities in which some functions are realized by few and/or vulnerable taxa). Furthermore, taxon-trait approaches would allow us to identify taxa with unique functional potential that may be irreplaceable within their ecosystem, that is, "keystone species." Controlled experiments based on artificially as- sembled communities can enable defined taxon-trait associations (Krause et al., 2014; Wallenstein & Hall, 2012) but such reductionist approaches are difficult to extend to the far more complicated large- scale studies of natural communities (Fierer & Lennon, 2011; Fierer et al., 2014). Building frameworks for these assessments, expanding access to full microbial genomes and extracting ecological relevant traits from these will be essential to the future of microbial functional ecology. These advances may mark a paradigm shift when the field of microbial ecology transitions from the taxonomic/phylogenetic approach toward a classification based on environmental roles and functional performance (Krause et al., 2014).

3.1.2 | Community-centered approaches

The most widely used approach in microbial functional ecol-
ogy consists of comparing communities using directly their traits,
which often reduce to the composition and abundance of particular
genes. However, metagenomics produce data suitable for extend-
ing trait-based analyses from the taxon to the community level, thus
eluding the confounding effects of HGT present at lower levels of
organization (Barberan, Fernandez-Guerra, Bohannan, & Casamayor, 2012). Indeed, it seems that there is no level of taxonomic resolution that unambiguously translates into functional differentiation, notably because microbes are redundant in many of the function they carry (Louca et al., 2018). This is supported by the frequent observation of a decoupling between taxonomic and functional community composition (Cheaib, Boulch, Mercier, & Derome, 2018; Goldford et al., 2018; Louca, Parfrey, & Doebeli, 2016; Mouchet et al., 2012; Roth-Schulze, Zozaya-Valdés, Steinberg, & Thomas, 2016). Along this idea, an increasing number of studies proposed that the unit of microbial ecology should be the genes rather than individual taxa (Boon et al., 2014; Konopka, 2009; Louca et al., 2018; Miki, Yokokawa, & Matsui, 2013). Others advocated for a "microbial ecology without species," asking whether the partition of a community into species/OTUs is an adequate description of the microbial world (Tikhonov, 2017). This is in line with the system biology idea that a community is more than the sum of its parts and exhibits emergent properties resulting from the attributes of an assemblage of organisms that live together in a contiguous environment and interact with each other (Boon et al., 2014; Fierer et al., 2014; Goldford et al., 2018; Konopka, 2009). This also agrees with the idea that microbial communities' adaptation to environmental conditions can be achieved through changes in the relative contribution of microbial populations to the total aggregated function of the community (Wallenstein & Hall, 2012) and is in accordance with the mass ratio hypothesis (Grime, 1998). As a result, community-level traits should be easier to link with community-level properties (Fierer et al., 2014) as it is done in plant functional ecology with the use of community-aggregated traits (Lavorel & Grigulis, 2012). This approach appears more adapted for the study and comparison of natural communities at large scales. Thus, we propose that assessing microbial functional diversity using community-level traits represents a step forward for characterizing the functioning of microbial systems and studying microbial functional biogeography (Bier et al., 2015; Violle, Reich, Pacala, Enquist, & Kattge, 2014).

## 3.2 | Functional traits in microbial ecology

### 3.2.1 | Genotypic microbial traits

The most commonly used microbial traits in the post-NGS era are genotypic traits. These encode the functional potential of microbes and mostly correspond to the presence of particular functional genes or pathways in the genome of microbial taxa or their abundance in the metagenome of a community (Goberna & Verdú, 2016).

In a taxa-centered perspective, genome reconstruction using sequencing approaches is the most commonly acknowledged method to describe the functional potential of a taxon using genotypic traits. While this can be relatively straightforward for cultivated organisms, it can become quickly intractable in environmental samples containing an enormous number of organisms. The first automated softwares for genome reconstruction in environmental samples have been developed (e.g., MAPLE: Takami, 2019; groopM: Imelfort et al., 2014; CONCOCT: Alneberg et al., 2014), and what seemed

impossible not so long ago appears more and more feasible. For instance, Anantharaman et al. (2016) reconstructed more than a thousand almost-complete (>93%) genomes, which represented a third of all microorganisms present in low biomass samples from an aquifer. Similarly, Takami (2019) reconstructed the genome of an uncultured archaea from a metagenomic library and inferred its physiological potential, expressed as the level of completion of KEGG modules and pathways. The completion level of functional pathways identified from metagenome may be more relevant than single functional genes and can easily be used as a functional trait. Beside the genome content in terms of genes, some authors have proposed to functionally characterize microorganisms using genotypic traits such as GC content, number of genes per genome, effective genome size, or 16S rRNA gene copy number (Barberan et al., 2012; Fierer et al., 2014; Goberna & Verdú, 2016). These "genome-centric" approaches are highly promising and constitute an important prerequisite toward a systems-level understanding of microbial communities (Turaev & Rattei, 2016), but the methods are still novel and their democratisation to a wide range of users will likely take some time. Further, a worth noting drawback of genome reconstruction approach is that most metagenome-assembled genomes are mosaics and not necessarily accurately portray a single species.

In a community-centered perspective, a community can be defined as a functional library composed of a collection of genes that may be selected by a given set of environmental conditions (Boon et al., 2014; Burke et al., 2011; Miki et al., 2013; Wallenstein & Hall, 2012). There are two main sets of approaches to characterize the metagenomic content of a community. A first set of approaches infers the functional contents of a community using its taxonomic composition (e.g., PiCRUST: Langille et al., 2013; Tax4Fun: Aßhauer et al., 2015; Vikodak: Nagpal, Haque, & Mande, 2016). In environments with many reference genomes, the accuracy of functional inferences can be comparable to shotgun sequencing (Turaev & Rattei, 2016), but their accuracy in complex and poorly described systems is debatable (Iwai et al., 2016; Xu, Malmer, Langille, Way, & Knight, 2014). Additionally, these methods were designed to predict vertically inherited functions and are thus more powerful for functions strongly associated with the evolution of taxonomic lineages. A second set of approaches is based on shotgun sequencing of metagenome or metatranscriptome and subsequent functional categorization of sequences to functional genes or pathways (Alneberg et al., 2014; Carvalhais, Dennis, Tyson, & Schenk, 2012). Once the metagenomic content of a community has been determined, several genotypic traits may be estimated such as the GC content and its variation, effective genome size, or metagenome functional content (Barberan et al., 2012). Others proposed to use shotgun metagenomic sequencing to estimate community-aggregated traits (Raguideau, Plancade, Pons, Leclerc, & Laroche, 2016) or to determine the molecular pathways contained by communities, their level of completion, and the diversity of organisms participating in these pathways (Takami, 2019). Another approach is to consider functional genes as community traits and to use the diversity of gene variants as trait value, as it reflects the diversity of organisms
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Microbial genotypic functional traits important to biogeochemical cycling, organic contaminant degradation, stress responses, antibiotic resistance, and virulence</caption><thead><tr><th>Ecosystem process</th><th>Functional process</th><th>Microbial functional trait</th><th>Organism's performance</th><th>Organism's fitness</th><th>Community/ecosystem level functions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Carbon cycling</td><td rowspan="2">CO<sub>2</sub> fixation (rdcl)</td><td>Ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase (rdcl)</td><td>CO<sub>2</sub> fixation</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Carbon fixation; calvin cycle</td></tr><tr><td>Mg-protoporphyrin IX chelatase (chl)</td><td>CO<sub>2</sub> fixation</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Carbon fixation, chlorophyll production</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Methanogenesis</td><td>Tetrahydrofolate formylase (fhs)</td><td>Transform formate and tetrahydrofolate to 10-formyltetrahydrofolate</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Acetogenesis, carbon fixation</td></tr><tr><td>Methyl coenzyme M reductase (mcrA)</td><td>Transform of methyl-CoM to methane</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Methanogenesis</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Methane oxidation</td><td>Particulate methane monooxygenase (pmoA)</td><td>Oxidize methane to methanol</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Methane oxidation</td></tr><tr><td>Endoglucanase</td><td>Cellulose degradation</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Biomass degradation, cellulose</td></tr><tr><td>Chitinase</td><td>Chitin degradation</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Biomass degradation, chitin</td></tr><tr><td>Xylanase (xynA/xynB)</td><td>Hydrolysis of 1-, 4-beta-D-xylosidic link-ages in xylans</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Biomass degradation, hemicellulose</td></tr><tr><td>Pectin lyase (pelA)</td><td>Lignin degradation</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Biomass degradation, lignin</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Nitrogen cycling</td><td rowspan="2">N mineralization</td><td>Manganese peroxidase (mnp)</td><td>Cleavage of (1-&gt;4)-alpha-D-galacturonan methyl ester</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Biomass degradation, pectin</td></tr><tr><td>Alpha-amylase (amyA)</td><td>Endohydrolysis of 1,4-alpha-D-glucosidic linkages</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Biomass degradation, starch</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Urease (UreC)</td><td>Protease</td><td>Protein degradation</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Biomass degradation, protein</td></tr><tr><td>Glutamate dehydrogenase</td><td>Hydrolyzing urea into ammonia<br>Fixation of ammonia into organic matter or oxidation of glutamate</td><td>Growth and reproduction<br>Growth and reproduction</td><td>N mineralization<br>N mineralization</td></tr><tr><td>Anammox</td><td>Hydrazine oxidoreductase (hzo)</td><td>Transformation of N<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub> to N<sub>2</sub></td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Anammox</td></tr><tr><td>N reduction</td><td>Nitrate reductase, assimilatory (nasA/ narB)</td><td>Reduction of NO<sub>3</sub><sup>-</sup> to NO<sub>2</sub></td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Assimilatory N reduction</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Nitrification</td><td>Nitrate reductase, respiratory (napA)</td><td>Reductions of NO<sub>3</sub><sup>-</sup> to NO<sub>2</sub></td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Dissimilatory N reduction</td></tr><tr><td>Ammonia monooxygenase (amoA)</td><td>Oxidation of NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup> to NH<sub>2</sub>OH</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Nitrification</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Denitrification</td><td>Hydroxylamine oxidoreductase (hao)</td><td>Oxidation of NH<sub>2</sub>OH to NO<sub>2</sub></td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Nitrification</td></tr><tr><td>Nitrate reductase, respiratory (narG)</td><td>Reduction of NO<sub>3</sub><sup>-</sup> to NO<sub>2</sub></td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Denitrification</td></tr><tr><td>Nitrite reductase (nirS/nirK)</td><td>Reduction of NO<sub>2</sub> to NO</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Denitrification</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">N Fixation</td><td>Nitrous oxide reductase (nosZ)</td><td>Reduction of N<sub>2</sub>O to N<sub>2</sub></td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Denitrification</td></tr><tr><td>Nitrogenase (nifH)</td><td>Fixation of N</td><td>Improved growth, survival, and reproduction</td><td>N fixation</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>TABLE 1 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Ecosystem process</th><th>Functional process</th><th>Microbial functional trait</th><th>Organism's performance</th><th>Organism's fitness</th><th>Community/ecosystem level functions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Phosphorus utilization</td><td>Organic</td><td>Exopolyphosphatase (ppx)</td><td>polyP degradation</td><td>Nutrient storage; Growth and reproduction</td><td>Phosphorus storage</td></tr><tr><td>Inorganic</td><td>(ptxD)</td><td>Phosphorus oxidation</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Phosphorus acquisition</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Sulfur utilization</td><td>Reduction</td><td>Adenylsulfate reductase (aprA)</td><td>Production of adenylsulfate from sulfite</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Adenylsulfate reductase</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Oxidation</td><td>Dissimilatory sulfite reductase (dsrA)</td><td>Oxidation of H<sub>2</sub>S to SO<sub>3</sub></td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Sulfur reduction</td></tr><tr><td>Sulfur oxidation protein SoxY</td><td>Carrier protein for thiosulfate oxidation</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Sulfur oxidation</td></tr><tr><td>Assimilation</td><td>Dimethyl sulfoniopropionate demethylase (dmdA)</td><td>Oxidation of DMSP</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Sulfur acquisition (marine)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Metal homeostasis</td><td>Arsenic</td><td>Arsenate reductase (arsC)</td><td>Reduction of arsenate to arsenite</td><td>Survival</td><td>Detoxification</td></tr><tr><td>Mercury</td><td>Mercuric reductase (merA)</td><td>Reduction of Hg<sup>2+</sup> to Hg<sup>0</sup></td><td>Survival</td><td>Detoxification</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple metals</td><td>Heavy metal efflux pump CzcA</td><td>Resistance to Cadmium, cobalt, zinc</td><td>Survival</td><td>Transport pump</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple metals</td><td>Metallothionein (smtA)</td><td>Sequestration of metal ions</td><td>Survival</td><td>Sequestration</td></tr><tr><td>Iron</td><td>Bacterioferritin (bfr)</td><td>Binding of iron ions</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Storage</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Organic contaminant remediation</td><td>Aromatic carboxylic acid</td><td>Phthalate 4,5-dioxygenase (phtA)</td><td>Oxidation of phthalate</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Detoxification/energy generation</td></tr><tr><td>BTEX and related aromatics</td><td>Toluene 2-monooxygenase (tomA3)</td><td>Oxidation of toluene</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Detoxification/energy generation</td></tr><tr><td>Chlorinated aromatics</td><td>2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetate alpha-ketoglutarate dioxygenase (tfdA)</td><td>Oxidation of herbicide</td><td>Growth and reproduction</td><td>Detoxification/energy generation</td></tr><tr><td>Heterocyclic aromatics</td><td>Dioxin dioxygenase/dibenzofuran dioxygenase (dxnA)</td><td>Oxidation of Dibenzo-p-dioxin and Dibenzofuran</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Detoxification/energy generation</td></tr><tr><td>Other aromatics</td><td>Catechol 1,2-dioxygenase</td><td>Conversion of catechols to cis, cis-muconates</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Detoxification/energy generation</td></tr><tr><td>Polycyclic aromatics</td><td>PAH-inducible cytochrome P450 monooxygenase (p450aro)</td><td>Oxidation of PAHs</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Detoxification/energy generation</td></tr><tr><td>Chlorinated solvents</td><td>Reductive dehalogenase (rd)</td><td>Reductive dehalogenation</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Detoxification/energy generation</td></tr><tr><td>Herbicides related compounds</td><td>Atrazine chlorohydrolase (atzA)</td><td>Degradation/utilization of triazine herbicides as a nitrogen source</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Detoxification/nitrogen utilization</td></tr><tr><td>Other Hydrocarbons</td><td>Alkane 1-monooxygenase (alkB)</td><td>Oxidation of alkanes</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Detoxification/energy generation</td></tr><tr><td>Pesticides related compounds</td><td>Haloalkane dehalogenase</td><td>Dehalogenation of synthetically produced haloalkanes</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Detoxification/energy generation</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>TABLE 1 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Ecosystem process</th><th>Functional process</th><th>Microbial functional trait</th><th>Organism's performance</th><th>Organism's fitness</th><th>Community/ecosystem level functions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Antibiotic resistance</td><td>Acid shock protein</td><td>Beta-lactamase</td><td>Degradation of beta-lactam containing compounds</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Detoxification/energy generation</td></tr><tr><td>Alkaline shock protein</td><td>Glutathione transferase fosA</td><td>Enzymatic alteration of fosfomycin</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Detoxification</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Stress responses</td><td>Quinolone resistance protein</td><td>Survival under acidic condition</td><td>Binds to enzymes targeted by quinolone antibiotics</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Resistance and resilience to quinolone antibiotics</td></tr><tr><td>Acid shock protein</td><td>Survival under alkaline condition</td><td>Survival under acidic condition</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Resistance and resilience to environmental changes/perturbations</td></tr><tr><td>Alkaline shock protein</td><td>Survival under alkaline condition</td><td>Survival under acidic condition</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Resistance and resilience to environmental changes/perturbations</td></tr><tr><td>Cold shock protein A</td><td>Survival of sudden temperature drops (cold shock)</td><td>Survival of sudden temperature drops (cold shock)</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Resistance and resilience to environmental changes/perturbations</td></tr><tr><td>Trehalose synthase</td><td>Production of trehalose to help maintain cytoplasm integrity (drought tolerance)</td><td>Production of trehalose to help maintain cytoplasm integrity (drought tolerance)</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Resistance and resilience to environmental changes/perturbations</td></tr><tr><td>Phage shock protein A (pspA)</td><td>Helps maintain proton motive force</td><td>Production of glutamine from glutamate</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Resistance and resilience to environmental changes/perturbations</td></tr><tr><td>Glutamine synthetase (glnA)</td><td>Production of glutamine from glutamate</td><td>Conversion of superoxide to hydrogen peroxide</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Resistance and resilience to environmental changes/perturbations</td></tr><tr><td>Superoxide dismutase</td><td>Conversion of superoxide to hydrogen peroxide</td><td>Regulator that becomes active under oxygen limitation</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Resistance and resilience to environmental changes/perturbations</td></tr><tr><td>Transcriptional regulator fnr</td><td>Regulator that becomes active under oxygen limitation</td><td>Uptake of inorganic phosphate</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Resistance and resilience to environmental changes/perturbations</td></tr><tr><td>Phosphate ABC transporter, ATP-binding protein (pstB)</td><td>Protein quality control under environmental stresses</td><td>Protein quality control under environmental stresses</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Resistance and resilience to environmental changes/perturbations</td></tr><tr><td>Stringent response</td><td>GTPase</td><td>Keeps intracellular ppGpp concentrations low</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Resistance and resilience to environmental changes/perturbations</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Toxin</td><td>Cytolethal distending toxin B (cdtB)</td><td>DNase; host cell death and release of nutrients</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Release of nutrients</td></tr><tr><td>Circumsporozoite protein</td><td>Colonization/infection of host cells</td><td>Survival, growth, and reproduction</td><td>Infection of host organisms</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: A more comprehensive, but not exhaustive, table is presented in Table S2. Characterization and classification of functional genes presented in these tables were realized using information available in databases such as NCBI, UniProt, or ExPasy but also based on extensive literature reviews.
carrying the function associated with the gene. This approach has been mostly reduced to the total abundance of genes, estimated as the number of sequences in the community (Burke et al., 2011; Souza et al., 2015), the signal intensity on a functional gene array (Bai et al., 2013; Bayer et al., 2014), or quantification using qPCR (Philippot et al., 2013; Powell, Welsh, Hallin, & Allison, 2015). A finer characterization of gene variants diversity is possible by considering their richness (Huang et al., 2014) or evenness (Powell et al., 2015) instead of their sheer abundance. For instance, denitrification rates were more strongly linked to the evenness of *nir* genes variants abundance distribution than to their richness or the total number of *nir* gene copies (Powell et al., 2015). Further, it was proposed that the ecosystem processes most sensitive to changes will be those narrowly distributed among phylogenies (Treseder et al., 2012), as distantly related organisms are more likely to be adapted to different environmental conditions than closely related ones. Indeed, it was shown that, despite the fact that HGT can spread functions across taxonomic and phylogenetic barriers, dissimilarity among organisms supporting a function can promote its productivity and stability (Carrara et al., 2015; Salles, Poly, Schmid, & Le Roux, 2009). We foresee that these types of approaches will provide new insights by allowing the estimation and comparison of functional diversity at the community level.

For genotypic traits to become the standard for microbial functional ecology, this will require a validation of their actual linkage with phenotypic traits and associated ecological strategies. Toward this goal, we provide a list of more than 400 genotypic functional traits covering microbial functions related to biogeochemistry, ecology, environmental sciences, and human health (Table 1 and Table S2). The characterization and classification of functional genes presented in these tables were realized using information available in databases such as NCBI, UniProt, or EXpasy and also were based on extensive literature reviews.

## 3.2.2 | Phenotypic microbial traits

The expression of genotypic traits at the taxon or community level results in phenotypic traits, that are conceptually more similar to the traits measured for macroorganisms. These traits are expected to be more directly related to ecosystem processes than genotypic ones, but this will depend on the process considered and our ability to estimate a phenotypic trait related to the process of interest.

In a taxa-centered perspective, phenotypic traits include organisms' characteristics (e.g., cell dimensions, shape, motility, spore formation, growth rate, stoichiometry), environmental preferences (e.g., oxygen requirement, optimal pH, temperature, and salinity tolerance) and metabolic capabilities (e.g., production of certain enzymes Barberán, Caceres Velazquez, Jones, & Fierer, 2017; Goberna & Verdú, 2016). Phenotypic traits can sometimes be inferred from genotypic ones (Barberán et al., 2017) but they are mostly estimated using cultured organisms and generally measured in controlled and/or favorable conditions. Hence, there is little certainty that a

phenotype associated with a taxon in the laboratory will also be observed in situ but this is a common weakness of cultivation-based and cultivation-free approaches. The scarcity of taxon-phenotypic traits data is even more pronounced than for genotypic traits, and this is notably due to lack of culturable representatives for most microbial groups (Aslam, Yasir, Khaliq, Matsui, & Chung, 2010; Pham & Kim, 2012). However, Barberán et al. (2017) collected phenotypic and environmental tolerance traits from articles published in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM), yielding the characterization of more than 5,000 bacterial strains. This database represents the typical type of taxon-trait data required to bridge the gap between functional ecology of micro- and macroorganisms through the use of common methods previously limited to microbial organisms.

In a community-centered perspective, phenotypic traits can correspond to community-aggregated traits (CATs, Fierer et al., 2014), but often correspond to estimates of community functioning sensus studies relating biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (BEF). For instance, this includes substrate use profiles (e.g., Biolog), production of gases, degradation of compounds, or temporal stability of biological process (e.g., biomass production, rate of compound degradation). These community-level phenotypic traits are much more difficult to predict than their taxon-level counterparts, notably as they arise from the interaction of many organisms. Novel methods provide the opportunity to identify functional groups within communities based on their activity or physiological states. For instance, stable isotope probing (SIP) allows the identification of groups of organisms that assimilate a particular substrate that was isotopically labeled beforehand. Doing so, it is possible to identify groups of organisms that behave similarly regarding particular compounds, or in other term to define a microbial functional group regarding a substrate. In soil systems, SIP can be combined with high-resolution secondary ion mass spectrometry (NanoSIMS) or Raman microspectroscopy to get insights into the in situ function of microorganisms (Eichorst et al., 2015). In aquatic and soil environments, SIP can be coupled with flow cytometry (FCM) and cell sorting to identify microbial functional groups within a water sample (Couradeau et al., 2019; Pjevac et al., 2019). In addition, FCM generates huge quantities of data that contains many parameters reflecting the physiological states of the cells. These multidimensional data can then be used as traits to identify and quantify functional groups of cells within the community (Props, Monsieurs, Mysara, Clement, & Boon, 2016).

## 3.2.3 | Other considerations regarding microbial functional traits

Beside the genotype/phenotype dichotomy, other considerations exist regarding the concept of functional trait. The first one concerns the distinction between effect and response traits (Allison & Martiny, 2008; Zwart, Solomon, & Jones, 2015). Effect traits relate to the concept of ecological niche (Elton, 1927), that is, they define organisms' ecological role by governing their ability to realize and
influence ecological processes (Allison & Martiny, 2008). Response traits relate to the concept of environmental niche (Grinnell, 1917), that is, they define organisms' ability to respond to and withstand changes of environmental conditions (Allison & Martiny, 2008). The distinction between effect and response traits is considered as critical for biodiversity and ecosystem functioning studies (Naeem & Wright, 2003), but their distinction appears highly complex for microbes. The choice of traits will depend on the question of interest, and whether one is interested in the realization of a particular ecological process involving effect traits or in the stability of a process across time, space, or environmental gradients, which depends on the ability to respond to environmental changes (Jurburg & Salles, 2015; Mori, Furukawa & Sasaki, 2013; Naeem & Wright, 2003). A second important distinction separates fundamental and realized ecological niches (Hutchinson, 1957) as it allows differentiating the intrinsic taxon/community attributes (fundamental) from the contingent properties dependent on abiotic and biotic environments (realized; Devíctor et al., 2010; Martiny et al., 2015). In the context of genotypic traits, fundamental and realized functionality of microbes can be assessed using DNA or RNA-based approaches, respectively. For instance, the use of (meta)transcriptomics provides information about which genotypic traits are actively expressed, allowing the identification of the processes realized by

the studied units or the types of environmental stresses they are dealing with Moran et al. (2013). Ideally, fundamental and realized niches should be assessed simultaneously to determine whether observed differences in realized functions arise from different environmental conditions acting on a similar functional potential or from different potential between communities (Louca et al., 2018). For a recent review on the topic of ecological niches of microbes, the reader is invited to read the brilliant piece on microdiversity by Larkin and Martiny (2017).

# 4 | EXAMPLE OF APPLICATIONS

## 4.1 | Estimating microbial functional diversity using a taxa-traits approach

Here, we present an example of functional diversity estimation following a taxa-traits approach and using tools developed for macroorganisms. To this end, we used the database released by Barberán et al. (2017), which contains the phenotypic and environmental tolerance traits for more than 5,000 bacterial strains. From this database, we selected 298 species from the soil habitat characterized by three continuous response traits corresponding to the species' optimal growth conditions in terms of salinity, pH, and temperature.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 1** Estimation of microbial functional diversity using a taxa-traits approach. (a) and (b) represent the position of 248 soil bacterial species in the functional space defined by three continuous response traits; growth optima in salinity, pH, and temperature. Species were clustered into seven functional groups (dots with different colors) exhibiting different trait values and defined using Kmeans classification. (c) and (d) represent two facets of functional diversity estimated on four sets of communities with contrasted functional characteristics (see main text for details); functional richness (c) and functional evenness (d)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 2** Gene variants diversity increases the correlation between community traits and ecological processes. HN q0, q1, and q2 correspond to Hill Number-based gene variants diversity estimated with order (q) 0, 1 and 2, respectively</figcaption></figure>

These traits were used to define functional groups of species, that is, groups of species with similar traits. Groups colored in green and orange were the most functionally dissimilar, whereas black was also functionally distinct but to a lesser extent (Figure 1a,b).

Then, we generated four sets of communities (n = 10) exhibiting contrasted functional characteristics. The first two sets were composed of 210 ± 5 species spanning a small (*lowFD*, no species from the green and orange functional groups) and high (*highFD*) range of trait values, respectively. The third and fourth sets were composed of 264 ± 5 species with similar trait values but different distribution of species across trait values. One set of communities was dominated by species with intermediate trait values (*highFD-even*) while the other was dominated by species with extreme trait values (*highFD-uneven*, dominance by species from the orange and green functional groups). We used the R package *FD* to estimate two different facets of functional diversity, richness, and evenness (Laliberté, Legendre, & Shipley, 2015). Functional richness (Figure 1c) is the amount of functional space occupied by the organisms composing the community and represents the range of traits observed in the community (Villéger et al., 2008). As expected, the two sets of communities with more species have a higher functional richness (*highFD-even* and *highFD-uneven*). In other terms, the range of environmental conditions in which the species composing the community are capable of growth is larger. Additionally, the two sets with a lower species richness have a lower functional richness, but more importantly they differ greatly in their functional richness, with the communities composed of species with a narrower range of trait values (*lowFD*) having a lower functional richness. Functional evenness (Figure 1d) is the degree of regularity in the distribution of species abundance in the functional space occupied by the

community. As expected, communities with abundance unevenly distributed across the trait values (*highFD-uneven*) exhibited lower functional evenness than communities with more even distribution (*highFD-even*). Further, the first two sets of communities exhibited similar functional evenness despite exhibiting different functional richness.

In this case study, we have shown that taxa-traits approaches allow to cluster species according to their biological characteristics. Then, we can scale at the community level and estimate complementary facets of functional diversity to uncover differences between communities that relate to their ecological functioning.

## 4.2 | Community-level approach of microbial functional diversity

In the following sections, we provide two examples of community-centered analyses of microbial functional diversity using ad hoc procedures. These two case studies are based on data from previous studies (Wu et al., 2017; Yue et al., 2015).

### 4.2.1 | Using gene variants diversity as trait increases the correlation between community traits and ecological processes

In this case study, we show how considering the diversity of functional genes variants at the community level can increase the correlation between estimated trait values and measured ecological processes (Figure 2a,b). We used data from previous studies (Wu et al., 2017; Yue et al., 2015) and analyzed the relationship between CH₄ emission in natural grassland and the diversity of *mcrA* and *mmoX* genes estimated at the community level using the methodology described hereafter. The *mcrA* gene encodes the alpha subunit of methyl coenzyme M reductase, involved in the final step of methanogenesis (Ma, Conrad, & Lu, 2012) while the *mmoX* gene encodes a methane monooxygenase, involved in the first step of methane oxidation by methanotrophs (Murreil, Gilbert, & McDonald, 2000).

The starting data correspond to a table containing the functional genes detected across communities as typically obtained using metagenome sequencing or functional gene arrays. Each functional gene is represented by different variants that are associated with a presence-absence or abundance (number of sequences, hybridization intensity) within each community. Here, we used Geochip 4.0 data to estimate trait values with four different methods: (1) total gene abundance estimated as the sum of gene signal intensity; (2-4) diversity of gene variants estimated using Hill numbers (Chao, Chiu, & Jost, 2014). Hill numbers are a parametric family of diversity indexes differing among themselves only by the parameter *q* (called the order) that determines the sensitivity of the index to species relative abundances. Hill numbers generalize classic diversity indexes (Shannon and Simpson) and offer several advantages compared with these (i.e., Hill numbers obey the replication principle and are expressed in intuitive units of effective numbers of functional gene variants).
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 3** Distribution of functional traits within soil communities</figcaption></figure>

Then, we correlated the estimated trait values (i.e., diversity of functional genes variants) with community-level functions (CH₄ fluxes) and compared the explanatory power of the various methods. As shown in Figure 2a,b, considering the diversity of *mcrA* and *mmoX* genes variants can increase the explanatory power of traits compared with a simple aggregation of variants abundances.

### 4.2.2 | Characterizing the distribution of microbial functional traits within soil communities

In this last case study, we demonstrate that gene-centered approaches can be used to characterize the distribution of functional traits within soil microbial communities and more particularly along a gradient from rarity to prevalence. Here, we used the same data as for the previous case study (Wu et al., 2017; Yue et al., 2015). The dataset consisted of 60 soil communities characterized using functional gene arrays (FGA, composed of 39,681 variants representing 194 traits). We determined the rank-abundance distribution of all the variants within communities. We used the signal intensities of variants to order them along a rare to prevalent spectrum that corresponded to ten abundance quantiles. The abundance of traits carried by variants from each quantiles can then be estimated to identify traits that are over/underrepresented along this spectrum (Figure 3). For instance, both the *nifH* and the *mcrA* genes are underrepresented in the pool of abundant variants. In addition, *mcrA* gene is overrepresented in the pool of

rare variants. On the contrary, the *ureC* gene is increasingly more abundant in pools of variants with increasing abundance. Finally, the *xylanase* gene does not show any trend and is thus present in similar abundance along the rarity to prevalence gradient.

In this case study, we showed that functional traits are distributed differently within microbial communities, with some traits being overrepresented in the pool of abundant variants while others being more present in the pool of rare variants. Highlighting such patterns has the potential to provide new insights into the functional organization of microbial systems.

## 5 | CONCLUSIONS

The theories and mechanisms describing microbial ecology and biogeography can and should be improved. As highlighted herein, microbial ecology has unique sets of challenges from those of the macrobial world. But, the capacity to perform community-wide molecular analyses is far less limited in microbial communities. Hence, with a molecular era, it is important to identify what data will be the most relevant. In most studies, the questions of interest correspond to function, so we propose that functional diversity receive attention. Microbial functional ecology is at a key moment of its structuring, novel tools are being continuously developed (Langille et al., 2013; Takami, 2019), data are made available (Barberán et al., 2017; Huse et al., 2014; Meyer et al., 2008), and pioneers are
paving the way for a rapidly advancing field (Fierer et al., 2014; Louca et al., 2018; Raguideau et al., 2016). In order to fulfill its promises, the field of microbial functional ecology will require solid foundations and we hope the synthesis and perspectives presented here will stimulate the thought and discussions toward this goal.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Marc Troussellier for his thoughtful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. The efforts in preparing this paper were supported, through contract DE-AC02-05CH11231 (as part of ENIGMA, a Scientific Focus Area), by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, "Genomics: GTL Foundational Science," to LBNL, by the OBER Biological Systems Research on the Role of Microbial Communities in Carbon Cycling Program (DE-SC0004601; DE-SC0010570) to JZ and MF, by the U.S. National Science Foundation MacroSystems Biology Program EF-1065844 to JZ, and NSF CBET-1336709 to LAC, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Superfund grant P42ES004705 to LAC. This work was also supported by the National Science Foundation of China project (41371256) to JZ, the Collaborative Innovation Center for Regional Environmental Quality, and State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control at Tsinghua University to JZ and YY.

## CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None declared.

## AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTION

AE, JZ, and MF initiated the research. AE and LH wrote the first draft manuscript. All the authors participated in the manuscript edition.

## DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data supporting the results presented in this article are available on the Dryad platform under the https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.m3r1r2t.

## ORCID

Arthur Escalas ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6450-5716

## REFERENCES

Alivisatos, A. P., Blaser, M. J., Brodie, E. L., Chun, M., Dangl, J. L., Donohue, T. J., ... Taha, S. A. (2015). A unified initiative to harness Earth's microbiomes: Transition from description to causality and engineering. *Science*, 350(6260), 507–508. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac8480

Allison, S. D. (2012). A trait-based approach for modelling microbial litter decomposition. *Ecology Letters*, 15, 1058–1070. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01807.x

Allison, S. D., & Martiny, J. B. H. (2008). Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 105(Supplement 1), 11512–11519. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801925105

Alneberg, J., Bjarnason, B. S., De Bruijn, I., Schirmer, M., Quick, J., Ijaz, U. Z., ... Quince, C. (2014). Binning metagenomic contigs by coverage and composition. *Nature Methods*, 11(11), 1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3103

Anantharaman, K., Brown, C. T., Hug, L. A., Sharon, I., Castelle, C. J., Probst, A. J., ... Banfield, J. F. (2016). Thousands of microbial genomes shed light on interconnected biogeochemical processes in an aquifer system. *Nature Communications*, 7, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13219

Aslam, Z., Yasir, M., Khaliq, A., Matsui, K., & Chung, Y. R. (2010). Mini review too much bacteria still unculturable. *Crop & Environment*, 1(1), 59–60.

Aßhauer, K. P., Wemheuer, B., Daniel, R., & Meinicke, P. (2015). Tax4Fun: Predicting functional profiles from metagenomic 16S rRNA data. *Bioinformatics*, 31(17), 2882–2884. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioin formatics/btv287

Bai, S., Li, J., He, Z., Van Nostrand, J. D., Tian, Y., Lin, G., ... Zheng, T. (2013). GeoChip-based analysis of the functional gene diversity and metabolic potential of soil microbial communities of man- groves. *Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology*, 97(15), 7035–7048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-012-4496-z

Barberán, A., Caceres Velazquez, H., Jones, S., & Fierer, N. (2017). Hiding in plain sight: Mining bacterial species records for phenotypic trait information. *mSphere*, 2(4), e00237-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00237-17

Barberan, A., Fernandez-Guerra, A., Bohannan, B. J. M., & Casamayor, E. O. (2012). Exploration of community traits as ecological markers in microbial metagenomes. *Molecular Ecology*, 21(8), 1909–1917. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05383.x

Barberán, A., Ramirez, K. S., Leff, J. W., Bradford, M. A., Wall, D. H., & Fierer, N. (2014). Why are some microbes more ubiquitous than others? Predicting the habitat breadth of soil bacteria. *Ecology Letters*, 17(7), 794–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12282

Bardgett, R. D., & Van Der Putten, W. H. (2014). Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. *Nature*, 515(7528), 505–511. https:// doi.org/10.1038/nature13855

Bayer, K., Moitinho-Silva, L., Brümmer, F., Cannistraci, C. V., Ravasi, T., & Hentschel, U. (2014). GeoChip-based insights into the microbial functional gene repertoire of marine sponges (high microbial abundance, low microbial abundance) and seawater. *FEMS Microbiology Ecology*, 90(3), 832–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6941.12441

Bier, R. L., Bernhardt, E. S., Boot, C. M., Graham, E. B., Hall, E. K., Lennon, J. T., ... Wallenstein, M. D. (2015). Linking microbial community structure and microbial processes: An empirical and conceptual overview. *FEMS Microbiology Ecology*, 91(10), fiv113. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiv113

Bodelier, P. L. E. (2011). Toward understanding, managing, and protecting microbial ecosystems. *Frontiers in Microbiology*, 2, 80. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2011.00080

Boon, E., Meehan, C. J., Whidden, C., Wong, D. H. J., Langille, M. G. I., & Beiko, R. G. (2014). Interactions in the microbiome: Communities of organisms and communities of genes. *FEMS Microbiology Reviews*, 38(1), 90–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6976.12035

Buchanan, R. E. T., & Gibbons, N. E. (1975). Bergey's manual of determinative bacteriology. *Taxon*, 24(2/3), 377. https://doi.org/10.2307/1218353

Burke, C., Steinberg, P., Rusch, D., Kjelleberg, S., & Thomas, T. (2011). Bacterial community assembly based on functional genes rather than species. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 108(34), 14288–14293. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1101591108

Callahan, B. J., McMurdie, P. J., & Holmes, S. P. (2017). Exact sequence variants should replace operational taxonomic units in
marker-gene data analysis. *ISME Journal*, 11(12), 2639-2643. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2017.119

Cardinale, B. J., Srivastava, D. S., Duffy, J. E., Wright, J. P., Downing, A. L., Sankaran, M., & Jouseau, C. (2006). Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. *Nature*, 443(7114), 989-992. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05202

Carmona, C. P., de Bello, F., Mason, N. W. H., & Lepš, J. (2016). Traits without borders: Integrating functional diversity across scales. *Trends in Ecology and Evolution*, 31(5), 382-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.003

Carrara, F., Giometto, A., Seymour, M., Rinaldo, A., Altermatt, F., & Hillebrand, H. (2015). Experimental evidence for strong stabilizing forces at high functional diversity of aquatic microbial communities. *Ecology*, 96(5), 1340-1350. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1324.1.sm

Carvalhais, L. C., Dennis, P. G., Tyson, G. W., & Schenk, P. M. (2012). Application of metatranscriptomics to soil environments. *Journal of Microbiological Methods*, 91(2), 246-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2012.08.011

Chao, A., Chiu, C.-H., & Jost, L. (2014). Unifying species diversity, phylogenetic diversity, functional diversity, and related similarity and differentiation measures through hill numbers. *Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics*, 45(1), 297-324. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091540

Chapin, F. S., Zavaleta, E. S., Eviner, V. T., Naylor, R. L., Vitousek, P. M., Reynolds, H. L., ... Díaz, S. (2000). Consequences of changing biodiversity. *Nature*, 405(6783), 234-242. https://doi.org/10.1038/35012241

Cheaib, B., Boulch, M. L., Mercier, P. L., & Derome, N. (2018). Taxon-function decoupling as an adaptive signature of Lake Microbial communities under a chronic polymetallic pollution gradient. *Frontiers in Microbiology*, 9, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00869

Couradeau, E., Sasse, J., Goudeau, D., Nath, N., Hazen, T. C., Bowen, B. P., ... Northen, T. R. (2019). Probing the active fraction of soil microbiomes using BONCAT-FACS. *Nature Communications*, 10(1), 2770. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10542-0

Devictor, V., Clavel, J., Julliard, R., Lavergne, S., Mouillot, D., Thuiller, W., ... Mouquet, N. (2010). Defining and measuring ecological specialization. *Journal of Applied Ecology*, 47(1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01744.x

Díaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin, F. S., & Tilman, D. (2006). Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. *PLoS Biology*, 4(8), 1300-1305. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277

Dinsdale, E. A., Edwards, R. A., Hall, D., Angly, F., Breitbart, M., Brulc, J. M., ... Rohwer, F. (2008). Functional metagenomic profiling of nine biomes. *Nature*, 452(7187), 629-632. https://doi.org/10.1038/natur e06810

Ducklow, H. (2008). Microbial services: Challenges for microbial ecologists in a changing world. *Aquatic Microbial Ecology*, 53, 13-19. https://doi.org/10.3354/ame01220

Dutilh, B. E., Backus, L., Edwards, R. A., Wels, M., Bayjanov, J. R., & Van Hijum, S. A. F. T. (2013). Explaining microbial phenotypes on a genomic scale: Gwas for microbes. *Briefings in Functional Genomics*, 12(4), 366-0380. https://doi.org/10.1093/bfgp/elt008

Eichorst, S. A., Strasser, F., Woyke, T., Schintlmeister, A., Wagner, M., & Woebken, D. (2015). Advancements in the application of NanoSIMS and Raman microspectroscopy to investigate the activity of microbial cells in soils. *FEMS Microbiology Ecology*, 91(10), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiv106

Elton, C., (1927). *Animal ecology* (Vol. 2001 fac-s). London, UK: Sidgwick and Jackson.

Falkowski, P. G., Fenchel, T., & Delong, E. F. (2008). The microbial engines that drive earth's biogeochemical cycles. *Science*, 320(5879), 1034-1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1153213

Fierer, N., Barberán, A., & Laughlin, D. C. (2014). Seeing the forest for the genes: Using metagenomics to infer the aggregated traits of

microbial communities. *Frontiers in Microbiology*, 5, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00614

Fierer, N., & Lennon, J. T. (2011). The generation and maintenance of diversity in microbial communities. *American Journal of Botany*, 98(3), 439-448. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1000498

Findley, K., Oh, J., Yang, J., Conlan, S., Deming, C., Meyer, J. A., & Segre, J. A. (2013). Topographic diversity of fungal and bacterial communities in human skin. *Nature*, 498(7454), 367-370. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12171

Gevers, D., Cohan, F. M., Lawrence, J. G., Spratt, B. G., Coenye, T., Feil, E. J., ... Swings, J. (2005). Re-evaluating prokaryotic species. *Nature Reviews Microbiology*, 3(1740-1752), 733-739. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1236

Giller, P. S., Hillebrand, H., Berninger, U. G., Gessner, M. O., Hawkins, S., Inchausti, P., ... O'Mullan, G. (2004). Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: Emerging issues and their experimental test in aquatic environments. *Oikos*, 104(3), 423-436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.13253.x

Glassman, S. I., & Martiny, J. B. H. (2018). Broadscale ecological patterns are robust to use of exact sequence variants versus operational taxonomic units. *mSphere*, 3(4), e00148-18. https://doi.org/10.1128/msphere.00148-18

Goberna, M., & Verdú, M. (2016). Predicting microbial traits with phylogenies. *ISME Journal*, 10(4), 959-967. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2015.171

Goldford, J. E., Lu, N., Bajić, D., Estrela, S., Tikhonov, M., Sanchez-Gorostiaga, A., ... Sanchez, A. (2018). Emergent simplicity in microbial community assembly. *Science*, 361(6401), 469-474. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat1168

Green, J. L., Bohannan, B. J. M., & Whitaker, R. J. (2008). Microbial biogeography: From taxonomy to traits. *Science*, 320(5879), 1039-1043. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1153475

Grime, J. P. (1998). Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: Immediate, filter and founder effects. *Journal of Ecology*, 86(6), 902-910. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.1998.00306.x

Grinnell, J. (1917). The Niche-relationships of the California thrasher. *The Auk*, 34(4), 427-433. https://doi.org/10.2307/4072271

Hillebrand, H., & Matthiessen, B. (2009). Biodiversity in a complex world: Consolidation and progress in functional biodiversity research. *Ecology Letters*, 12(12), 1405-1419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01388.x

Huang, Q., Briggs, B. R., Dong, H., Jiang, H., Wu, G., Edwardson, C., ... Quake, S. (2014). Taxonomic and functional diversity provides insight into microbial pathways and stress responses in the saline Qinghai Lake, China. *PLoS ONE*, 9(11), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111681

Huse, S. M., Mark Welch, D. B., Voorhis, A., Shipunova, A., Morrison, H. G., Eren, A. M., & Sogin, M. L. (2014). VAMPS: A website for visualization and analysis of microbial population structures. *BMC Bioinformatics*, 15(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-15-41

Hutchinson, G. E. (1957). Concluding remarks. *Cold Spring Harbor Symposium Quantitative Biology*, 22, 415-427. https://doi.org/10.1101/SQB.1957.022.01.039

Imelfort, M., Parks, D., Woodcroft, B. J., Dennis, P., Hugenholtz, P., & Tyson, G. W. (2014). GroopM: An automated tool for the recovery of population genomes from related metagenomes. *PeerJ*, 2, e603. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.603

Iwai, S., Weinmaier, T., Schmidt, B. L., Albertson, D. G., Poloso, N. J., Dabbagh, K., & DeSantis, T. Z. (2016). Piplimin: Improved prediction of metagenomic content by direct inference from human microbesomes. *PLoS ONE*, 11(11), e0166104. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166104

Jurburg, S. D., & Salles, J. F. (2015). Functional redundancy and ecosystem function — the soil microbiota as a case study. In Y.-H. Lo, J. A.
Blanco, & R. Shovonlal (Eds.), *Biodiversity in ecosystems - linking structure and function* (pp. 29-49). https://doi.org/10.5772/58981

Konopka, A. (2009). What is microbial community ecology? *The ISME Journal*, 3(11), 1223-1230. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2009.88

Koskella, B., Hall, L. J., & Metcalf, C. J. E. (2017). The microbiome beyond the horizon of ecological and evolutionary theory. *Nature Ecology and Evolution*, 1(11), 1606-1615. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0340-2

Krause, S., Le Roux, X., Niklaus, P. A., van Bodegom, P. M., Lennon, J. T., Bertilsson, S., ... Bodelier, P. L. E. (2014). Trait-based approaches for understanding microbial biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. *Frontiers in Microbiology*, 5, 251. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00251

Laliberté, A. E., Legendre, P., & Shipley, B. (2015). *Package FD: Measuring functional diversity (FD) from multiple traits, and other tools for functional ecology*. R package version 1.0-12. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/FD/

Lamanna, C., Blonder, B., Violle, C., Kraft, N. J. B., Sandel, B., Imova, I., ... Enquist, B. J. (2014). Functional trait space and the latitudinal diversity gradient. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 111(38), 13745-13750. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317722111

Lamarque, P., Lavorel, S., Mouchet, M., & Quetier, F. (2014). Plant trait-based models identify direct and indirect effects of climate change on bundles of grassland ecosystem services. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 111(38), 13751-13756. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1216051111

Langille, M. G. I., Zaneveld, J., Caporaso, J. G., McDonald, D., Knights, D., Reyes, J. A., ... Huttenhower, C. (2013). Predictive functional profiling of microbial communities using 16S rRNA marker gene sequences. *Nature Biotechnology*, 31(9), 814-821. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2676

Larkin, A. A., & Martiny, A. C. (2017). Microdiversity shapes the traits, niche space, and biogeography of microbial taxa. *Environmental Microbiology Reports*, 9(2), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-2229.12523

Lavorel, S., & Grigulis, K. (2012). How fundamental plant functional trait relationships scale-up to trade-offs and synergies in ecosystem services. *Journal of Ecology*, 100(1), 128-140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01914.x

Lennon, J. T., Aanderud, Z. T., Lehmkuhl, B. K., & Schoolmaster, D. R. (2012). Mapping the niche space of soil microorganisms using taxonomy and traits. *Ecology*, 93(8), 1867-1879. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1745.1

Litchman, E., Edwards, K. F., & Klausmeier, C. A. (2015). Microbial resource utilization traits and trade-offs: Implications for community structure, functioning, and biogeochemical impacts at present and in the future. *Frontiers in Microbiology*, 6, 254. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00254

Loreau, M., Mouquet, N., & Gonzalez, A. (2003). Biodiversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous landscapes. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 100(22), 12765-12770. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2235465100

Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J. P., Hector, A., ... Wardle, D. A. (2001). Ecology: Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges. *Science*, 294(5543), 804-808. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1064088

Louca, S., Parfrey, L. W., & Doebeli, M. (2016). Decoupling function and taxonomy in the global ocean microbiome. *Science*, 353(6305), 1272-1277. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf4507

Louca, S., Polz, M. F., Mazel, F., Albright, M. B. N., Huber, J. A., O'Connor, M. I., ... Parfrey, L. W. (2018). Function and functional redundancy in microbial systems. *Nature Ecology and Evolution*, 2(6), 936-943. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0519-1

Ma, K., Conrad, R., & Lu, Y. (2012). Responses of methanogen mcrA genes and their transcripts to an alternate dry/wet cycle of paddy field soil. *Applied and Environmental Microbiology*, 78(2), 445-454. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.06934-11

Martiny, J. B. H., Jones, S. E., Lennon, J. T., & Martiny, A. C. (2015). Microbiomes in light of traits: A phylogenetic perspective. *Science*, 350, aac9323. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac9323

McFall-Ngai, M. J. (2015). Giving microbes their due - Animal life in a microbially dominant world. *The Journal of Experimental Biology*, 218(Pt 12), 1968-1973. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.115121

McLaren, M. R., & Callahan, B. J. (2018). In nature, there is only diversity. *mBio*, 9(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.02149-17

Meyer, F., Paarmann, D., D'Souza, M., Olson, R., Glass, E., Kubal, M., ... Edwards, R. (2008). The metagenomics RAST server-A public resource for the automatic phylo- genetic and functional analysis of metagenomes. *BMC Bioinformatics*, 9, 386. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-386

Miki, T., Yokokawa, T., & Matsui, K. (2013). Biodiversity and multifunctionality in a microbial community: A novel theoretical approach to quantify functional redundancy. *Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences*, 281(1776), 20132498. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2498

Mlambo, M. C. (2014). Not all traits are "functional": Insights from taxonomy and biodiversity-ecosystem functioning research. *Biodiversity and Conservation*, 23(3), 781-790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0618-5

Moran, M. A., Satinsky, B., Gifford, S. M., Luo, H., Rivers, A., Chan, L. K., ... Hopkinson, B. M. (2013). Sizing up metatranscriptomics. *ISME Journal*, 7(2), 237-243. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2012.94

Mori, A. S., Furukawa, T., & Sasaki, T. (2013). Response diversity determines the resilience of ecosystems to environmental change. *Biological Reviews*, 88(2), 349-364. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12004

Mouchet, M. A., Bouvier, C., Bouvier, T., Troussellier, M., Escalas, A., & Mouillot, D. (2012). Genetic difference but functional similarity among fish gut bacterial communities through molecular and biochemical fingerprints. *FEMS Microbiology Ecology*, 79(3), 568-580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2011.01241.x

Mouchet, M. A., Villéger, S., Mason, N. W. H., & Mouillot, D. (2010). Functional diversity measures: An overview of their redundancy and their ability to discriminate community assembly rules. *Functional Ecology*, 24(4), 867-876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01695.x

Mouillot, D., Villéger, S., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., & Mason, N. W. H. (2011). Functional structure of biological communities predicts ecosystem multifunctionality. *PLoS ONE*, 6(3), e17476. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017476

Mourkas, E., Florez-Cuadrado, D., Pascoe, B., Calland, J. K., Bayliss, S. C., Mageiros, L., ... Sheppard, S. K. (2019). Gene pool transmission of multidrug resistance among Campylobacter from livestock, sewage and human disease. *Environmental Microbiology*. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.14760

Murreil, J. C., Gilbert, B., & McDonald, I. R. (2000). Molecular biology and regulation of methane monooxygenase. *Archives of Microbiology*, 173(5-6), 325-332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002030000158

Naeem, S., & Wright, J. P. (2003). Disentangling biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: Deriving solutions to a seemingly insurmountable problem. *Ecology Letters*, 6(6), 567-579. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00471.x

Nagpal, S., Haque, M. M., & Mande, S. S. (2016). Vikodak - A modular framework for inferring functional potential of microbial communities from 16S metagenomic datasets. *PLoS ONE*, 11(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148347

Nemergut, D. R., Schmidt, S. K., Fukami, T., O'Neill, S. P., Bilinski, T. M., Stanish, L. F., ... Ferrenberg, S. (2013). Patterns and processes of microbial community assembly. *Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews*, 77(3), 342-356. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00051-12

Petchey, O. L., & Gaston, K. J. (2006). Functional diversity: Back to basics and looking forward. *Ecology Letters*, 9, 741-758. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00924.x
Pham, V. H. T., & Kim, J. (2012). Cultivation of unculturable soil bacteria. *Trends in Biotechnology*, 30(9), 475-484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2012.05.007

Philippot, L., Spor, A., Hénault, C., Bru, D., Bizouard, F., Jones, C. M., ... Maron, P. A. (2013). Loss in microbial diversity affects nitrogen cycling in soil. *ISME Journal*, 7(8), 1609-1619. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.34

Pjevac, P., Dyksma, S., Goldhammer, T., Mujakić, I., Kobližek, M., Mussmann, M., ... Orlić, S. (2019). In situ abundance and carbon fixation activity of distinct anoxygenic phototrophs in the stratified seawater lake Rogoznica. *BioRxiv*, 631366. https://doi.org/10.1101/631366

Plante, C. J. (2017). Defining disturbance for microbial ecology. *Microbial Ecology*, 74(2), 259-263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-017-0956-4

Polz, M. F., Hunt, D. E., Preheim, S. P., & Weinreich, D. M. (2006). Patterns and mechanisms of genetic and phenotypic differentiation in marine microbes. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences*, 361(1475), 2009-2021. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.1928

Powell, J. R., Welsh, A., Hallin, S., & Allison, S. D. (2015). Microbial functional diversity enhances predictive models linking environmental parameters to ecosystem properties. *Ecology*, 96(7), 1985-1993. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1127.1

Props, R., Monsieurs, P., Mysara, M., Clement, L., & Boon, N. (2016). Measuring the biodiversity of microbial communities by flow cytometry. *Methods in Ecology and Evolution*, 7(11), 1376-1385. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12607

Prosser, J. I. (2015). Dispersing misconceptions and identifying opportunities for the use of "omics" in soil microbial ecology. *Nature Reviews Microbiology*, 13(7), 439. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3468

Raguideau, S., Plancade, S., Pons, N., Leclerc, M., & Laroche, B. (2016). Inferring aggregated functional traits from metagenomic data using constrained non-negative matrix factorization: Application to fiber degradation in the human gut microbiota. *PLoS Computational Biology*, 12(12), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005252

Roth-Schulze, A. J., Zozaya-Valdés, E., Steinberg, P. D., & Thomas, T. (2016). Partitioning of functional and taxonomic diversity in surface-associated microbial communities. *Environmental Microbiology*, 18(12), 4391-4402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13325

Salles, J. F., Poly, F., Schmid, B., & Le Roux, X. (2009). Community niche predicts the functioning of denitrifying bacterial assemblages. *Ecology*, 90(12), 3324-3332. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0188.1

Schloss, P. D., & Westcott, S. L. (2011). Assessing and improving methods used in operational taxonomic unit-based approaches for 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis. *Applied and Environmental Microbiology*, 77(10), 3219-3226. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02810-10

Schnoes, A. M., Brown, S. D., Dodevski, I., & Babbitt, P. C. (2009). Annotation error in public databases: Misannotation of molecular function in enzyme superfamilies. *PLoS Computational Biology*, 5(12), e1000605. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000605

Shade, A., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Beyond the Venn diagram: The hunt for a core microbiome. *Environmental Microbiology*, 14(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02585.x

Shade, A., Peter, H., Allison, S. D., Baho, D. L., Berga, M., Bürgmann, H., ... Handelsman, J. (2012). Fundamentals of microbial community resistance and resilience. *Frontiers in Microbiology*, 3, 417. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00417

Shipley, B., De Bello, F., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Laliberté, E., Laughlin, D. C., & Reich, P. B. (2016). Reinforcing loose foundation stones in trait-based plant ecology. *Oecologia*, 180(4), 923-931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3549-x

Souza, R. C., Hungria, M., Cantao, M. E., Ribeiro Vasconcelos, A. T., Nogueira, M. A., & Vicente, V. A. (2015). Metagenomic analysis reveals microbial functional redundancies and specificities in a soil under different tillage and crop-management regimes.

*Applied Soil Ecology*, 86, 106-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.10.010

Takami, H. (2019). Functional microbial diversity. In M. Ashdown (Ed.), *Microbial diversity in the genomic era* (pp. 427-449). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814849-5.00024-1

Tamura, M., & D'haeseleer, P. (2008). Microbial genotype-phenotype mapping by class association rule mining. *Bioinformatics*, 24(13), 1523-1529. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btn210

Tikhonov, M. (2017). Theoretical microbial ecology without species. *Physical Review E*, 96(3), 032410. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.96.032410

Torriani-Gorini, A., Yagil, E., & Silver, S. (1994). *Phosphate in microorganisms: Cellular and molecular biology*. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&xml=id=M2AUHb3n5JAC&pgis=1

Treseder, K. K., Balser, T. C., Bradford, M. A., Brodie, E. L., Dubinsky, E. A., Eviner, V. T., ... Waldrop, M. P. (2012). Integrating microbial ecology into ecosystem models: Challenges and priorities. *Biogeochemistry*, 109(1-3), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-011-9636-5

Troussellier, M., & Legendre, P. (1981). A functional evenness index for microbial ecology. *Microbial Ecology*, 7(4), 283-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02341423

Turaev, D., & Rattei, T. (2016). High definition for systems biology of microbial communities: Metagenomics gets genome-centric and strain-resolved. *Current Opinion in Biotechnology*, 39, 174-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2016.04.011

Villéger, S., Mason, N. W. H., & Mouillot, D. (2008). New multidimensional functional diversity indices for a multifaceted framework in functional ecology. *Ecology*, 89(8), 2290-2301. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1206.1

Violle, C., Navas, M. L., Vile, D., Kazakou, E., Fortunel, C., Hummel, I., & Garnier, E. (2007). Let the concept of trait be functional! *Oikos*, 116, 882-892. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15559.x

Violle, C., Reich, P. B., Pacala, S. W., Enquist, B. J., & Kattge, J. (2014). The emergence and promise of functional biogeography. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 111(38), 13690-13696. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1415442111

Violle, C., Thuiller, W., Mouquet, N., Munoz, F., Kraft, N. J. B., Cadotte, M. W., ... Mouillot, D. (2017). A common toolbox to understand, monitor or manage rarity? A response to Carmona et al. *Trends in Ecology and Evolution*, 32(12), 891-893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.10.001

Wallenstein, M. D., Hall, E. K. (2012). A trait-based framework for predicting when and where microbial adaptation to climate change will affect ecosystem functioning. *Biogeochemistry*, 109(1-3), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-011-9641-8

Wu, L., Yang, Y., Wang, S., Yue, H., Lin, Q., Hu, Y., ... Zhou, J. (2017). Alpine soil carbon is vulnerable to rapid microbial decomposition under climate cooling. *ISME Journal*, 11(9), 2102-2111. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2017.75

Xu, Z., Malmer, D., Langille, M. G. I., Way, S. F., & Knight, R. (2014). Which is more important for classifying microbial communities: Who's there or what they can do? *ISME Journal*, 8(12), 2357-2359. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2014.157

Yachi, S., & Loreau, M. (1999). Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: The insurance hypothesis. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 96(4), 1463-1468. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.4.1463

Young, J. P. W. (2016). Bacteria are smartphones and mobile genes are apps. *Trends in Microbiology*, 24(12), 931-932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2016.09.002

Yue, H., Wang, M., Wang, S., Gilbert, J. A., Sun, X., Wu, L., ... Yang, Y. (2015). The microbe-mediated mechanisms affecting topsoil carbon
stock in Tibetan grasslands. *ISME Journal*, 9(9), 2012–2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2015.19

Zwart, J. A., Solomon, C. T., & Jones, S. E. (2015). Phytoplankton traits predict ecosystem function in a global set of lakes. *Ecology*, *96*(8), 2257–2264. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-2102.1

**How to cite this article:** Escalas A, Hale L, Voordeckers JW, et al. Microbial functional diversity: From concepts to applications. *Ecol Evol*. 2019;9:12000–12016. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5670

## SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article.