Paul F. Kemp

Students and early career researchers/professionals (ECRs) must increasingly acquire a variety of skills and expand their collaborative networks to become more competitive as they apply for jobs and grants. Funding for skills training and overall availability of opportunities can, however, pose a challenge to this career plan. The Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO) is proud to support the professional development of member and non‐member students and ECRs by offering a myriad of skill‐building programs. These include opportunities to: receive mentoring, travel to ASLO events, expand networks, conduct outreach projects, research exchanges, and internships, better understand scientific publishing, and exercise leadership within the society. In addition, ASLO recognizes the contribution of member students and ECRs to their communities, field, and to the society. Participation in ASLO‐sponsored programs can, thus, assist in the successful transition of students to ECRs, and of ECRs to independent researchers.

Reworked and fluidized fine‐grained deposits in energetic settings are a major modern‐day feature of river deltas and estuaries. Similar environments were probably settings for microbial evolution on the early Earth. These sedimentary systems act as efficient biogeochemical reactors with high bacterial phylogenetic diversity and functional redundancy. They are temporally rather than spatially structured, with repeated cycling of redox conditions and successive stages of microbial metabolic processes. Intense reworking of the fluidized bed entrains bacteria from varied habitats providing new, diverse genetic materials to contribute to horizontal gene transfer events and the creation of new bacterial ecotypes. These vast mud environments may act as exporters and promoters of biosphere diversity and novel adaptations, potentially on a globally important scale.

Like Bacteria, Archaea occur in a wide variety of environments, only some of which can be considered 'extreme'. We compare archaeal diversity, as represented by 173 16S rRNA gene libraries described in published reports, to bacterial diversity in 79 libraries from the same source environments. An objective assessment indicated that 114 archaeal libraries and 45 bacterial libraries were large enough to yield stable estimates of total phylotype richness. Archaeal libraries were seldom as large or diverse as bacterial libraries from the same environments. However, a relatively larger proportion of libraries were large enough to effectively capture rare as well as dominant phylotypes in archaeal communities. In contrast to bacterial libraries, the number of phylotypes did not correlate with library size; thus, 'larger' may not necessarily be 'better' for determining diversity in archaeal libraries. Differences in diversity suggest possible differences in ecological roles of Archaea and Bacteria; however, information is lacking on relative abundances and metabolic activities within the sampled communities, as well as the possible existence of microhabitats. The significance of phylogenetic diversity as opposed to functional diversity remains unclear, and should be a high priority for continuing research.

As a necessary step in the study of prokaryotic diversity using 16S rDNA libraries, authors should evaluate how well their libraries represent diversity in the source environment. Phylotype‐richness estimates can be used to judge whether a library represents diversity sufficiently for its intended purpose. We have argued that richness estimates are most useful if libraries are first shown to be large enough to yield stable estimates. In this article, we (1) evaluate two potentially suitable, non‐parametric richness estimators (S_ACE and S_Chao1), tested against model libraries and libraries drawn from natural prokaryotic communities; (2) evaluate whether stable richness estimates are also unbiased; and (3) examine characteristics of prokaryotic libraries that influence the usefulness of richness estimators. Richness estimates consistently reached a stable asymptotic value for libraries that sampled diversity exhaustively. Stable estimates appear to be unbiased or minimally biased estimates of phylotype richness. The S_ACE estimator was often undefined, sometimes overestimated phylotype richness at intermediate sampling efforts, and sometimes stabilized at a larger library size than the S_Chao1 estimator. The S_Chao1 estimator appears well suited for estimating phylotype richness from prokaryotic 16S rDNA libraries. Libraries judged too small to yield a stable richness estimate typically had a highly uneven frequency distribution of phylotypes, with a preponderance of phylotypes that occurred only once in the library. Libraries considered large enough typically had a more even frequency distribution of phylotypes. A software tool is provided to aid others in assessing whether their libraries are large enough to yield stable phylotype‐richness estimates.

We evaluate the substantial amount of information accumulated on bacterial diversity in a variety of environments and address several fundamental questions, focusing on aquatic systems but including other environments to provide a broader context. Bacterial diversity data were extracted from 225 16S rDNA libraries described in published reports, representing a variety of aquatic and non-aquatic environments. Libraries were predominantly composed of rare phylotypes that appeared only once or twice in the library, and the number of phylotypes observed was correlated with library size (implying that few libraries are exhaustive samples of diversity in the source community). Coverage, the estimated proportion of phylotypes in the environment represented in the library, ranged widely but on average was remarkably high and not correlated with library size. Phylotype richness was calculated by methods based on the frequency of occurrence of different phylotypes in 194 libraries that provided appropriate data. For 90% of aquatic-system libraries, and for 79% of non-aquatic libraries, the estimated phylotype richness was <200 phylotypes. Nearly all of the larger estimates were in aquatic sediments, digestive systems and soils. However, the approaches used to estimate phylotype richness may yield underestimates when libraries are too small. A procedure is described to provide an objective means of determining when a library is large enough to provide a stable and unbiased estimate of phylotype richness. A total of 56 libraries, including 44 from aquatic systems, were considered 'large enough' to yield stable estimates suitable for comparing richness among environments. Few significant differences in phylotype richness were observed among aquatic environments. For one of two richness estimators, the average phylotype richness was significantly lower in hyperthermal environments than in sediment and bacterioplankton, but no other significant differences among aquatic environments were observed. In general, and with demonstrated exceptions, published studies have captured a large fraction of bacterial diversity in aquatic systems. In most cases, the estimated bacterial diversity is lower than we would have expected, although many estimates should be considered minimum values. We suggest that on local scales, aquatic bacterial diversity is much less than any predictions of their global diversity, and remains a tractable subject for study. The global-scale diversity of aquatic Bacteria, on the other hand, may be beyond present capabilities for effective study.