Supplemental nests are often used to restore habitats for a variety of rare and endangered taxa. However, though they mimic the function of natural nests, they vary in design and construction material. We know from previous research on human buildings that these differences in architecture can alter the types of microbes to which inhabitants are exposed, and these shifts in microbial interactions can be detrimental for individual health and well‐being. Yet, no one has tested whether bacterial communities in supplemental structures are distinct from those found in natural nests. Here, we sampled the bacteria from inside supplemental nests of the endangered Key Largo woodrat (Neotoma floridana smalli). We then compared the diversity and composition of those bacteria to the bacteria collected from natural stick‐nests and the surrounding forest environment in Key Largo, Florida. In addition, we sampled woodrat bodies to assess the microbiota of nest inhabitants. We observed distinct bacterial communities in Key Largo woodrat nests, relative to the forest environment; however, we could not differentiate between the bacterial communities collected from supplemental and natural nests. Furthermore, when we considered the potential accumulation of rodent‐associated bacterial pathogens, we found no evidence of their presence in supplemental nests, in natural nests, or on the forest floor. Where we expected to see an accumulation of pathogens, we instead observed high relative abundances of bacteria from antimicrobial‐producing groups (i.e., Pseudonocardiaceae and Streptomycetaceae). The bacteria on Key Largo woodrat individuals resembled those of their nests, with a low relative abundance of potential pathogens (0.3% of sequence reads) and a high relative abundance of bacteria from antimicrobial‐producing groups. Our results suggest that, although there is some microbial interaction between nests and nest inhabitants, there are no detectable differences in the types of bacteria to which Key Largo woodrats are exposed in supplemental and natural nest structures.

中文翻译：

---

濒临灭绝的生态系统工程师在自然和补充巢中的细菌群落

补充巢穴通常用于恢复各种稀有和濒危类群的栖息地。但是，尽管它们模仿天然巢穴的功能，但是它们在设计和构造材料上各不相同。从先前对人类建筑的研究中我们知道，建筑上的这些差异可以改变居民所接触的微生物的类型，并且微生物相互作用的这些变化可能对个体健康和福祉有害。但是，没有人测试过补充结构中的细菌群落是否不同于自然巢中的细菌群落。在这里，我们从濒临灭绝的Key Largo woodrat（Neotoma floridana smalli）。然后，我们将这些细菌的多样性和组成与从佛罗里达州基拉戈市的天然竹nes和周围森林环境中收集的细菌进行了比较。此外，我们对伍德拉特人的身体进行采样，以评估巢居民的微生物群。相对于森林环境，我们在基拉戈伍德拉特（Largo woodrat）巢中观察到了不同的细菌群落。但是，我们无法区分从补充巢和自然巢收集的细菌群落。此外，当我们考虑啮齿动物相关细菌病原体的潜在积累时，我们没有发现它们存在于补充巢，天然巢或林地中的证据。在我们期望看到病原体积累的地方，我们观察到了来自抗菌素生产组的细菌的相对高相对含量（即，假心动菌科和链霉菌科）。拉哥岛主要伍德拉特个体上的细菌类似于其巢中的细菌，潜在病原体的相对丰度较低（占序列读数的0.3％），而产生抗菌素的细菌的相对丰度较高。我们的结果表明，尽管巢和巢居民之间存在某些微生物相互作用，但是在辅助和自然巢结构中，基拉戈伍德拉特鼠所接触的细菌类型没有可检测的差异。