Elsevier

Environmental Pollution

Volume 306, 1 August 2022, 119418
Environmental Pollution

Exposure to crop production alters cecal prokaryotic microbiota, inflates virulome and resistome in wild prairie grouse

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119418Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Cropland grouse exhibit dysbiosis and elevated virulence and antibiotic resistance.

  • Crop production similarly affects microbiota in both study species.

  • Crop production affects microbiota to a greater extent than host species.

  • Naturally distinct microbiotas of study species converge in croplands.

  • Sex or age of grouse do not affect cecal microbiota, virulome, or resistome.

Abstract

Chemically intensive crop production depletes wildlife food resources, hinders animal development, health, survival, and reproduction, and it suppresses wildlife immune systems, facilitating emergence of infectious diseases with excessive mortality rates. Gut microbiota is crucial for wildlife's response to environmental stressors. Its composition and functionality are sensitive to diet changes and environmental pollution associated with modern crop production. In this study we use shotgun metagenomics (median 8,326,092 sequences/sample) to demonstrate that exposure to modern crop production detrimentally affects cecal microbiota of sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus: 9 exposed, 18 unexposed and greater prairie chickens (T. cupido; 11, 11). Exposure to crop production had greater effect on microbiota richness (t = 6.675, P < 0.001) and composition (PERMANOVA r2 = 0.212, P = 0.001) than did the host species (t = 4.762, P < 0.001; r2 = 0.070, P = 0.001) or their interaction (t = 3.449; r2 = 0.072, both P = 0.001), whereas sex and age had no effect. Although microbiota richness was greater in exposed (T. cupido chao1 = 152.8 ± 20.5; T. phasianellus 115.3 ± 17.1) than in unexposed (102.9 ± 15.1 and 101.1 ± 17.2, respectively) birds, some beneficial bacteria dropped out of exposed birds' microbiota or declined and were replaced by potential pathogens. Exposed birds also had higher richness and load of virulome (mean ± standard deviation; T. cupido 24.8 ± 10.0 and 10.1 ± 5.5, respectively; T. phasianellus 13.4 ± 6.8/4.9 ± 2.8) and resistome (T. cupido 46.8 ± 11.7/28.9 ± 10.2, T. phasianellus 38.3 ± 16.7/18.9 ± 14.2) than unexposed birds (T. cupido virulome: 14.2 ± 13.5, 4.5 ± 4.2; T. cupido resistome: 31.6 ± 20.2 and 13.1 ± 12.0; T. phasianellus virulome: 5.2 ± 4.7 and 1.4 ± 1.5; T. phasianellus resistome: 13.7 ± 16.1 and 4.0 ± 6.4).

Introduction

Agriculture could be the single most important threat to biodiversity globally (Dudley and Alexander, 2017). Its current detrimental impacts on wildlife may be more profound than those of global climate change (Dudley and Alexander, 2017; Maxwell et al., 2016). Although habitat loss due to agricultural conversion is a pressing issue in developing countries, agrochemical pollution associated with intensification of crop production is causing the greatest concern in developed nations (Green et al., 2005; Stanton et al., 2018). Recent studies have demonstrated that populations of 74% of farmland birds declined in the USA and Canada since the 1960s despite slight decreases in farm area (Stanton et al., 2018). Furthermore, grasslands suffered the greatest decline of avian abundance since 1970 among North American biomes (Rosenberg et al., 2019).

Agrochemicals may affect non-target wildlife directly by exposure to lethal doses, but, more frequently, the effects are indirect when the exposure is sub-lethal and animals suffer chronic fitness consequences leading to population declines over time (Gibbons et al., 2015; Stanton et al., 2018; van der Sluijs et al., 2015). These indirect effects include depletion of wildlife food resources by indiscriminate kill of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, plants, or fungi, (van der Sluijs et al., 2015) and adverse effects on animal growth, development, health, survival, and reproduction (Gibbons et al., 2015; Pandey and Mohanty, 2015). Agrochemicals also suppress wildlife immune systems, facilitating the emergence and spread of infectious diseases with unusually high mortality rates - the proposed leading cause of continuing global wildlife declines (Mason et al., 2013).

Wildlife microbiota - the community of microbes that primarily inhabit the animal digestive tract (gut) is crucial for its host response to environmental stressors. Gut microbiota participates in food digestion and detoxification, nitrogen recycling, protects the host from pathogens and environmental toxins, stimulates host's immune system, produces vitamins and hormones, and regulates brain function, behavior, and reproduction (Clarke et al., 2014; Heintz-Buschart and Wilmes, 2018; Hird, 2017; Jiménez and Sommer, 2017; Liang et al., 2018; Mohajeri et al., 2018; Rosenberg and Zilber-Rosenberg, 2018). Microbiota richness, composition, and hence functionality are sensitive to dietary changes and environmental pollution (Fackelmann and Sommer, 2019; Jiménez and Sommer, 2017; Rosenfeld, 2017). Surprisingly, the effect of agrochemicals on gut microbiota has not been studied in free-ranging wildlife despite recent studies demonstrating significant negative impacts of common agrochemicals on microbiota of humans and laboratory rodents (Defois et al., 2018; Liang et al., 2019; Lukowicz et al., 2018; Yuan et al., 2019).

To evaluate the effects of wildlife exposure to modern crop production, we compared cecal microbiota of populations of the sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) and greater prairie chicken (T. cupido) residing in areas with and without crop production in Nebraska. North-central Nebraska contains the largest intact, uncultivated grassland in North America, the Sandhills (>50,000 km2), while other parts of the state are extensively used for crop production (Fig. 1). Although individual prairie grouse (Tympanuchus spp.) can occasionally move tens of kilometers, the vast majority have small home ranges. Annual home ranges of the greater prairie chicken vary from 0.36 to 104.33 km2 with a median of 5.44 km2 (Patten et al., 2011). Home ranges of the sharp-tailed grouse vary from 0.13 to 2.00 km2 during the breeding period and from 0.22 to 7.52 km2 during winter, with an average distance of 2.2 km (3.2 km maximum) between the two ranges, whereas daily movements do not exceed 1.2 km (Connelly et al., 2020). Diet of both species, sexes and age groups (<1 year and >1 year) is similar and is comprised of seeds, including spilled and wasted grain where available, insects, fruit, and foliage including alfalfa (Connelly et al., 2020; Johnson et al., 2020). The sedentary habits and diet of prairie grouse are well suited for a comparative study of possible effects of exposure to crop production on their microbiota.

We chose to focus on the cecal microbiota because of their crucial role in grouse adaptation to processing large quantities of poor-quality foods (Remington, 1989). During feeding bouts, grouse store large quantities of food in their crops. A collective function of most gut regions posterior to the crop is to separate large indigestible fragments of ingested food from finely ground, soluble, and readily digestible forage employing physical and chemical means. The former are rapidly excreted as dry feces but the latter are shunted to the ceca, which serve as microbial fermentation chambers, where non-starch polysaccharides and uric acid are broken into volatile fatty acids and ammonia, and salts and water are reabsorbed (Clench and Mathias, 1995; Svihus, 2014; Svihus et al., 2013). Grouse ceca are also responsible for detoxification of secondary phytocompounds (Kohl et al., 2016). Also, the variation in richness and composition of microbiota in the ceca is significantly lower than in other gut regions (Drovetski et al., 2019, 2018) allowing for efficient detection of environmentally induced changes in microbiota (Drovetski et al., 2019). The goals of this study were to determine (1) whether exposure to crop production affects cecal microbiota richness and composition in prairie grouse, (2) whether the differences between exposed and non-exposed birds are consistent with predictions for dysbiosis, i.e., whether changes in richness and composition of microbiota are associated with decline of beneficial host microbes and their replacement by pathogens, and (3) whether the exposure effects are consistent between host species.

Section snippets

Sampling

This project was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees of the National Museum of Natural History (permit 2019-02), USGS Eastern Ecological Science Center (permit 2019-04), and conducted in accordance with the approved protocol, guidelines, and Nebraska hunting regulations. Voucher specimens were deposited at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution (USNM662731 - USNM662741, USNM663461 - USNM663499).

Birds were collected using a 12-gauge shotgun in

Prokaryotic microbiota

Our dataset included 398,634,662 sequences obtained from 49 samples (Suppl. Table A.1; Drovetski et al., 2022). The number of sequences obtained from individual samples ranged from 3,978,854 to 10,674,390 with a median of 8,326,092. There were 453 prokaryotic strains in our complete dataset (Table A.2), and the number of strains in a sample varied from 73 to 172 with a median of 109. The richness and abundance of DNA viruses and eukaryotic microbes were low and they were omitted from this

Discussion

Understanding the breadth and mechanism of effects of crop production on non-target wildlife is key for developing sustainable agricultural practices. We report results of the first study evaluating effects of exposure to crop production on prokaryotic microbiota, virulome, and resistome in wild birds. Our data demonstrate that exposure to crop production profoundly affected composition of cecal microbiota in two prairie grouse species (Fig. 2). The effect of the exposure on cecal microbiota

Conclusions

Our results suggest that exposure to modern crop production may be associated with dysbiosis of cecal microbiota in both prairie grouse species. Despite the considerable host-specific differences in microbiota composition, virulome, and resistome of the unexposed birds, they all converged in birds exposed to crop production. This convergence points to the similarity of the exposure effects in both host species. Future studies could address potential mechanisms that may be responsible for these

Data statement

The raw sequences archive has been deposited to GenBank: BioProject ID PRJNA788491 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/PRJNA788491). GenBank biosample accession numbers for individual samples are listed in Table A.1. All other data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its Supplementary Tables A.1 - A.8 and are also available as a U.S. Geological Survey data release (Drovetski et al., 2022).

Credit author statement

Serguei V. Drovetski: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing - original draft, visualization, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition; Brian K. Schmidt: methodology, investigation, resources, data curation, writing - review and editing; Jonas E. Lai: investigation, data curation, writing - review and editing; Michael S. Gross: methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing - review and

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the U.S. Geological Survey, Environmental Health Program and by the Shealy family through the Basis Foundation (https://thebasisfoundation.weebly.com) Seed Grant to Gary Graves, Department of vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of National History. The funding sources had no involvement with any aspects of this study or manuscript preparation. Gary Graves encouraged us to pursue this project and provided support with logistics, supplies, and funding for fieldwork. We

References (78)

  • T. Wienemann et al.

    The bacterial microbiota in the ceca of capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) differs between wild and captive birds

    Syst. Appl. Microbiol.

    (2011)
  • X. Yuan et al.

    Gut microbiota: an underestimated and unintended recipient for pesticide-induced toxicity

    Chemosphere

    (2019)
  • M.J. Anderson

    A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance

    Austral Ecol.

    (2001)
  • T.G. Bean et al.

    Toxicokinetics of imidacloprid-coated wheat seeds in Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) and an evaluation of hazard

    Environ. Sci. Technol.

    (2019)
  • L. Biedermann et al.

    The intestinal microbiota: its role in health and disease

    Eur. J. Pediatr.

    (2015)
  • K.H. Bodawatta et al.

    Flexibility and resilience of great tit (Parus major) gut microbiomes to changing diets

    Anim. Microbiome

    (2021)
  • J.R. Bray et al.

    An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin

    Ecol. Monogr.

    (1957)
  • J.G. Caporaso et al.

    QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data

    Nat. Methods

    (2010)
  • A. Chao

    Nonparametric estimation of the number of classes in a population

    Scand. J. Stat.

    (1984)
  • J. Chen et al.

    Relationship between the gut microbiome and energy/nutrient intake in a confined bioregenerative life support system

    Appl. Environ. Microbiol.

    (2020)
  • G. Clarke et al.

    Minireview: gut microbiota: the neglected endocrine organ

    Mol. Endocrinol.

    (2014)
  • M.H. Clench et al.

    The avian cecum: a review

    Wilson Bull.

    (1995)
  • J.W. Connelly et al.

    Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), version 1.0

  • E.H. Crost et al.

    The mucin-degradation strategy of Ruminococcus gnavus: the importance of intramolecular trans-sialidases

    Gut Microb.

    (2016)
  • K. Cushing et al.

    Butyrate and mucosal inflammation: new scientific evidence supports clinical observation

    Clin. Transl. Gastroenterol.

    (2015)
  • C. Defois et al.

    Food chemicals disrupt human gut microbiota activity and impact intestinal homeostasis as revealed by in vitro systems

    Sci. Rep.

    (2018)
  • G. Dong et al.

    The association of gut microbiota with idiopathic central precocious puberty in girls

    Front. Endocrinol.

    (2020)
  • S.V. Drovetski et al.

    Spatial organization of the gastrointestinal microbiota in urban Canada geese

    Sci. Rep.

    (2018)
  • S.V. Drovetski et al.

    Distinct microbiotas of anatomical gut regions display idiosyncratic seasonal variation in an avian folivore

    Anim. Microbiome

    (2019)
  • S.V. Drovetski et al.

    Characterizing Microbiota, Virulome, and Resistome of Wild Prairie Grouse in Crop Producing and Uncultivated Areas of Nebraska

    (2022)
  • N. Dudley et al.

    Agriculture and biodiversity: a review

    Biodiversity

    (2017)
  • D. Gibbons et al.

    A review of the direct and indirect effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on vertebrate wildlife

    Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.

    (2015)
  • U. Gophna et al.

    Oscillospira and related bacteria – from metagenomic species to metabolic features

    Environ. Microbiol.

    (2017)
  • R.E. Green et al.

    Farming and the fate of wild nature

    Science

    (2005)
  • M.S. Gross et al.

    Uptake, metabolism, and elimination of fungicides from coated wheat seeds in Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica)

    J. Agric. Food Chem.

    (2020)
  • M.S. Gross et al.

    A Multiresidue Method for the Analysis of Pesticides in Water Using Solid-phase Extraction with Gas and Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry

    (2021)
  • S.G.K. Hansen et al.

    Two cases of Ruminococcus gnavus bacteremia associated with diverticulitis

    J. Clin. Microbiol.

    (2013)
  • M.T. Henke et al.

    Ruminococcus gnavus, a member of the human gut microbiome associated with Crohn's disease, produces an inflammatory polysaccharide

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am.

    (2019)
  • S.M. Hird

    Evolutionary biology needs wild microbiomes

    Front. Microbiol.

    (2017)
  • Cited by (0)

    This paper has been recommended for acceptance by Professor Christian Sonne.

    View full text