Anthropogenic Activities Induce Depletion in Microbial Communities at Urban Sites of the River Ganges
- 151 Downloads
The Ganges is the largest river of India, worshiped by Hindus with a belief that bathing in the river causes the remission of sins and is considered very pure. It is heavily polluted by the unrestricted human usage including ritual practices, urbanization, and industrialization. Such perturbations may subsequently influence the bacterial community composition and ecosystem functioning. Here, we applied targeted amplicon sequencing to determine the impact of spatial variation on the microbial community assemblage of the Ganga River. The river bacterial community demonstrates taxonomic variability across the sites with accumulation of Firmicutes (20.9%) Verrucomicrobia (6.09%), Actinobacteria (4.51%), and Synergistetes (1.16%), at rural site while Proteobacteria (49.4%) and Bacteroidetes (12.7%) predominate at urban sites. Furthermore, sites under study establish the unique taxonomic signature which could represent the impact of spatial variation on the microbial community assemblage.
This work was supported by the “Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of India” (by Grant No. BT/PR/0054/NDB/52/94/2007), under the Project “Establishment of Microbial Culture Collection’. We are grateful to Center for Citizen Science for their support in sample collection.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
All other authors declared no competing interests.
- 4.Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. Of India (2013).Google Scholar
- 15.Verghese BG, Iyer RR (1993) Harnessing the Eastern Himalayan Rivers: Regional Cooperation in South Asia. Konark Publishers, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
- 17.Whitehead PG, Barbour E, Futter MN, Sarkar S, Rodda H, Caesar J, Butterfield D, Sinha R, Nicholls R, Hutton C, Leckie HD (2015) Impacts of climate change and socio-economic scenarios on flow and water quality of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna (GBM) river systems: low flow and flood statistics. Environ Sci 17:1057–1069Google Scholar