| Literature DB >> 23226324 |
Erica A H Smithwick1, Kusum J Naithani, Teri C Balser, William H Romme, Monica G Turner.
Abstract
Stand-replacing fires influence soil nitrogen availability and microbial community composition, which may in turn mediate post-fire successional dynamics and nutrient cycling. However, fires create patchiness at both local and landscape scales and do not result in consistent patterns of ecological dynamics. The objectives of this study were to (1) quantify the spatial structure of microbial communities in forest stands recently affected by stand-replacing fire and (2) determine whether microbial variables aid predictions of in situ net nitrogen mineralization rates in recently burned stands. The study was conducted in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) and Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir (Picea engelmannii/Abies lasiocarpa) forest stands that burned during summer 2000 in Greater Yellowstone (Wyoming, USA). Using a fully probabilistic spatial process model and Bayesian kriging, the spatial structure of microbial lipid abundance and fungi-to-bacteria ratios were found to be spatially structured within plots two years following fire (for most plots, autocorrelation range varied from 1.5 to 10.5 m). Congruence of spatial patterns among microbial variables, in situ net N mineralization, and cover variables was evident. Stepwise regression resulted in significant models of in situ net N mineralization and included variables describing fungal and bacterial abundance, although explained variance was low (R²<0.29). Unraveling complex spatial patterns of nutrient cycling and the biotic factors that regulate it remains challenging but is critical for explaining post-fire ecosystem function, especially in Greater Yellowstone, which is projected to experience increased fire frequencies by mid 21(st) Century.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23226324 PMCID: PMC3511569 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050597
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Relative mole percent (mean (±1 SE), n = 81) of dominant, individual lipids at the post-fire crown and severe-surface burn plots, two years following fire.
| Lipid | Glade-crown | Moran-crown | Glade-surface | Moran-surface |
| 11∶0 | 0.72 | 0.93 | 0.72 | 0.46 |
| 12∶0 | 2.90 | 2.08 | 3.43 | 2.17 |
| 14∶0 | 4.35 | 2.16 | 3.49 | 2.90 |
| 15∶0 | 1.21 | 1.04 | 0.97 | 1.07 |
| 15∶0anteiso | 3.02 | 2.70 | 2.55 | 3.22 |
| 15∶0iso | 3.13 | 2.91 | 2.86 | 3.90 |
| 15∶1ω8c | NA | 6.66 | 19.82 | 16.22 |
| 15∶1ω9c | 7.75 | 3.72 | 8.64 | 5.64 |
| 16∶0 | 12.15 | 8.35 | 10.25 | 10.03 |
| 16∶02OH | 1.47 | 2.56 | 1.82 | 1.74 |
| 16∶0iso | 1.61 | 1.37 | 1.45 | 1.68 |
| 16∶1ω5c | 1.35 | 1.04 | 1.25 | 1.29 |
| 16∶1ω7c | 5.43 | 4.92 | 4.73 | 5.12 |
| 17∶0anteiso | 1.65 | 1.80 | 1.46 | 1.79 |
| cy17∶0 | 2.55 | 2.26 | 2.45 | 2.59 |
| 17∶0iso | 0.79 | 0.53 | 0.76 | 0.72 |
| 17∶1ω8 | 1.28 | 1.29 | 1.68 | 1.21 |
| 17∶1ω7c | 3.41 | 9.57 | 6.90 | 7.16 |
| 18∶0 | 4.11 | 3.00 | 3.13 | 2.47 |
| 18∶02OH | 3.30 | 4.18 | 3.20 | 3.54 |
| 18∶1ω9c | 16.10 | 9.08 | 12.89 | 11.45 |
| 18∶2ω6c | 4.08 | 2.49 | 3.34 | 3.50 |
| 18∶3ω6c | 2.71 | 1.59 | 2.14 | 2.01 |
| 19∶0 | 0.25 | 1.82 | 0.17 | 0.27 |
| cy19∶0 | 0.47 | 0.40 | 0.09 | 0.49 |
| 19∶1ω8t | 7.57 | 9.08 | 9.84 | 9.48 |
Microbial characteristics (mean (±1 SE), n = 81) of plots two years following the Moran and Glade crown and severe-surface fires in the GYE. Assignment of lipids to microbial groups is explained in the text.
| Glade-crown | Moran-crown | Glade-surface | Moran-surface | |||
| Abundance (nmol) | 205.25 | 374.19 | 363.90 | 301.73 | ||
| Fungi/Bacteria | 0.93 | 0.43 | 0.83 | 0.55 | ||
| Gm+ | 0.010 | 0.016 | 0.014 | 0.015 | ||
| Gm- | 0.020 | 0.048 | 0.049 | 0.040 | ||
|
| 1.04 | 1.12 | NA | 1.28 | ||
Best predictors of total net nitrogen mineralization in the post-fire crown and severe-surface burn plots.
| Glade-crown | Moran-crown | Glade-surface | Moran-surface |
| − Coarse Wood (%)*** | + Forbs (%)* | −Shrub (%)** | |
| − | − Gm−. | − Bacteria** | − Bacteria**** |
| + Fungi** | + Fungi* | + Fungi** | |
| − Fungi/Bacteria*** | − Fungi/Bacteria** | − Fungi/Bacteria** | − Fungi/Bacteria** |
Notes:+and – signs indicate the type of correlation and * represents statistically significant relationship at P = 0 ‘****’, P<0.001 ‘***’, P<0.01 ‘**’, P<0.05 ‘*’. Model with best predictors is selected based on minimum AIC value. G and M refer to Glade and Moran sampling locations respectively. The following variables were used in stepwise regression: Rock (%), Charred Litter (%), Fresh Litter (%), Exposed mineral soil (%), Coarse woody debris (%), Lupinus (%), Ceanothus (%), Forbs (%), Graminoids (%), Shrubs (%), Pinus contorta (%), Non-vegetative cover (%), Vegetative cover (%), pH, Abundance, Fungi, Bacteria, Fungi/Bacteria, Gm+, Gm−.
Posterior parameter estimates (mean (5%, 95% CI)) of spatial models in the post-fire crown and severe-surface burn plots. Live plant cover includes % Lupinus, % Ceonothus, % forbs, % graminoids, % shrubs.
| Trend | Range (m) | Sill | Nugget | Nugget/(Nugget+Sill) | R2 | ||
|
| |||||||
| Glade-crown | 204.3 (99.8, 272.9) | 4.5 (0.0, 132.9) | 10864 (7098, 20234) | 7672.2 (3137.4, 15153.3) | 0.79 (0.24, 0.99) | 0.94 | |
| Moran-crown | 373.3 (314.8, 423.4) | 1.5 (0.0, 100.5) | 29362 (20854, 50591) | 19549.9 (6444.1, 39124.7) | 0.73 (0.16, 0.98) | 0.98 | |
| Glade-surface | 363.5 (156.6, 574.3) | 3.0 (0.0, 142.2) | 39545 (24616, 71824) | 27732.2 (10019.0, 53868.1) | 0.80 (0.23, 0.99) | 0.93 | |
| Moran-surface | 313.5 (145.8, 495.4) | 78.9 (7.8, 145.2) | 20413 (13262, 35273) | 16429.6 (10235.0, 22418.8) | 0.83 (0.45, 0.99) | 0.56 | |
|
| |||||||
| Glade-crown | 0.9 (0.7, 1.2) | 10.5 (1.8, 27.6) | 0.14 (0.10, 0.22) | 0.10 (0.05, 0.15) | 0.78 (0.28, 0.99) | 0.89 | |
| Moran-crown | 0.4 (0.4, 0.5) | 3.6 (0.3, 9.6) | 0.03 (0.02, 0.05) | 0.02 (0.01, 0.03) | 0.72 (0.17, 0.98) | 0.97 | |
| Glade-surface | 0.8 (0.7, 0.9) | 1.5 (0.0, 6.0) | 0.14 (0.10, 0.22) | 0.09 (0.03, 0.14) | 0.72 (0.16, 0.98) | 0.98 | |
| Moran-surface | 0.5 (0.5, 0.6) | 5.1 (1.2, 21.6) | 0.03 (0.02, 0.05) | 0.02 (0.01, 0.03) | 0.75 (0.19, 0.98) | 0.94 | |
|
| |||||||
| Glade-crown | 17.1 (-3.7, 36.1) | 13.8 (6.9, 27.0) | 1101 (750, 1869) | 686.2 (286.1, 1018.0) | 0.65 (0.18, 0.97) | 0.87 | |
| Moran-crown | 4.5 (-4.5, 13.5) | 2.4 (0.0, 13.8) | 792 (562, 1254) | 540.6 (190.8, 832.7) | 0.74 (0.17, 0.98) | 0.97 | |
| Glade-surface | 17.1 (10.7, 23.8) | 1.5 (0.0, 10.5) | 558 (402, 866) | 379.8 (129.1, 573.7) | 0.73 (0.16, 0.98) | 0.98 | |
| Moran-surface | 22.1 (16.8, 27.2) | 1.8 (0.0, 6.0) | 358 (257, 561) | 240.4 (80.6, 354.4) | 0.72 (0.16, 0.98) | 0.98 | |
|
| |||||||
| Glade-crown | 29.5 (17.5, 13.3) | 9.9 (4.2, 26.1) | 413 (290, 669) | 282.38 (117.16, 419.5) | 0.73 (0.21, 0.98) | 0.89 | |
| Moran-crown | 23.6 (19.3, 28.0) | 1.5 (0.0, 4.8) | 285 (206, 443) | 190.96 (62.18, 277.32) | 0.72 (0.15, 0.98) | 0.98 | |
| Glade-surface | 30.2 (25.9, 34.3) | 1.8 (0.0, 9.9) | 226 (163.0, 351) | 153.97 (53.27, 232.56) | 0.74 (0.17, 0.98) | 0.98 | |
| Moran-surface | 24.4 (17.5, 30.2) | 4.2 (0.3, 23.1) | 273 (196, 422) | 195.02 (80.41, 299.53) | 0.77 (0.22, 0.99) | 0.95 | |
|
| |||||||
| Glade-crown | 70.4 (60.5, 82.1) | 9.9 (4.2, 26.1) | 413 (290, 669) | 282.4 (117.1, 419.5) | 0.73 (0.21, 0.98) | 0.89 | |
| Moran-crown | 76.3 (71.9, 80.6) | 1.5 (0.0, 4.8) | 285 (206, 443) | 191.0 (62.2, 277.3) | 0.72 (0.15, 0.98) | 0.98 | |
| Glade-surface | 69.8 (65.6, 74.0) | 1.8 (0.0, 9.9) | 226 (163, 351) | 154.0 (53.3, 232.6) | 0.74 (0.17, 0.98) | 0.98 | |
| Moran-surface | 75.5 (69.5, 82.2) | 4.2 (0.3, 23.1) | 273 (196, 422) | 195.0 (80.4, 299.5) | 0.77 (0.22, 0.99) | 0.95 | |
Detrital and abiotic cover includes % rock, charred litter, fresh litter, coarse woody debris, and mineral soil.
Note: Adjusted cross-validation R2 is reported. Units of nugget and sill are squared units of the corresponding variables.
Figure 1A representative (a) semivariogram, and (b) leave-one-out cross-validation exploring spatial autocorrelation of in situ net N mineralization (mg N kg-soil−1 yr−1), where the dotted line is the 1∶1 line and the solid line is the linear regression fit, and (c–f) posterior distribution of parameters estimated from semivariogram.
β is trend, φ is range parameter (range (unit: m) = 3φ), σ2 is sill (unit: (mg N kg-soil−1 yr−1)2), and τ2 (unit: (mg N kg-soil−1 yr−1)2) is nugget. Blue lines at the bottom of the histogram indicate the tick marks at the actual data values.
Figure 2Kriged maps of a–d) in situ net nitrogen mineralization rate (mg N kg-soil−1 yr−1), e–h) Fungi/Bacteria ratio, i–l) total vegetative cover (%), and m–p) microbial lipid abundance (nmol) in the post-fire crown and severe-surface burn plots.
Note: discontinuities in mapped patterns reflect locations in which the range was predicted to be less than the minimum sampling distance, or that there was not enough data for continuous spatial prediction.