| Title |
Ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and archaea within biofilters of a commercial recirculating marine aquaculture system
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AMB Express, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13568-018-0551-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhitao Huang, Yuli Jiang, Xiefa Song, Eric Hallerman, Lei Peng, Dengpan Dong, Teng Ma, Jieming Zhai, Wensheng Li |
| Abstract |
While biofilters are widely used to metabolize ammonia and other wastes in marine recirculating aquaculture systems, the ammonia-oxidizing bacterial and archaeal communities have not been characterized across a diversity of production systems. Using a metagenomics approach, we characterized the ammonia-oxidizing microbiological community of biofilters in a commercial recirculating marine aquaculture system producing hybrid grouper (Epinephelus lanceolatus × E. fuscoguttatus). Cloning and sequencing of the amoA gene showed that nitrifying bacteria included Nitrosomonas europea, N. stercoris, N. cryotolerans, N. eutropha, N. estuarii, eight strains of N. marina, and 15 strains not associated with described species. Nitrifying archaea included eight strains of Nitrosopumilus maritimus, N. koreensis, N. piranensis, N. adriaticus, undescribed congeners, and other undescribed archaea. The species composition of the bacterial and especially the archaeal communities was beyond that yet reported for aquaculture biofilters. While ammonia flux through the respective communities has yet to be estimated, the diverse environmental adaptations of the bacterial and archaeal communities suggest resilience of function under a range of environmental conditions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 14% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 91 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 25 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 25 | 27% |
| Environmental Science | 13 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 11% |
| Engineering | 5 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 27 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2018.
All research outputs
#13,344,224
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#239
of 1,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,380
of 444,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#6
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,241 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 444,262 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.