| Literature DB >> 23301169 |
Jorge Curiel Yuste1, Josep Barba, Antonio José Fernandez-Gonzalez, Manuel Fernandez-Lopez, Stefania Mattana, Jordi Martinez-Vilalta, Pau Nolis, Francisco Lloret.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to understand how drought-induced tree mortality and subsequent secondary succession would affect soil bacterial taxonomic composition as well as soil organic matter (SOM) quantity and quality in a mixed Mediterranean forest where the Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) population, affected by climatic drought-induced die-off, is being replaced by Holm-oaks (HO; Quercus ilex). We apply a high throughput DNA pyrosequencing technique and (13)C solid-state Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (CP-MAS (13)C NMR) to soils within areas of influence (defined as an surface with 2-m radius around the trunk) of different trees: healthy and affected (defoliated) pines, pines that died a decade ago and healthy HOs. Soil respiration was also measured in the same spots during a spring campaign using a static close-chamber method (soda lime). A decade after death, and before aerial colonization by the more competitive HOs have even taken place, we could not find changes in soil C pools (quantity and/or quality) associated with tree mortality and secondary succession. Unlike C pools, bacterial diversity and community structure were strongly determined by tree mortality. Convergence between the most abundant taxa of soil bacterial communities under dead pines and colonizer trees (HOs) further suggests that physical gap colonization was occurring below-ground before above-ground colonization was taken place. Significantly higher soil respiration rates under dead trees, together with higher bacterial diversity and anomalously high representation of bacteria commonly associated with copiotrophic environments (r-strategic bacteria) further gives indications of how drought-induced tree mortality and secondary succession were influencing the structure of microbial communities and the metabolic activity of soils.Entities:
Keywords: Climate change; drought; ecosystem functioning; forest dieback; gap colonization; microbial diversity; nutrient cycling; pyrosequencing; tree mortality
Year: 2012 PMID: 23301169 PMCID: PMC3538997 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.409
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Dead Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris) individual in the mixed forest of the Titllar Valley in Prades (North-East Spain). Photo reproduced by permission of David Aguade.
Figure 2Schematic representation of the experimental design. Some measures (e.g. SR, C and N content; see left small panels of the figure) were performed over each individual soil sample. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectral analyses (central panels) were performed on four samples, previously combined according to proximity (same area of influence or nearest). Pyrosequencing (right panel) was performed on one composite sample, including the equimolar combination of the amplified (PCR) product of each individual samples.
Descriptive statistics of the values of the different segment of the spectra and indexes generated (aromaticity, recalcitrancy, and A/A-O ratio) by the 13C NMR analyses
| Confidence interval at 95% | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | SD | Standard error | Lower limit | Upper limit | Mín | Máx | |||
| Carbonyl C | HO | 4 | 9.13 | 5.60 | 2.80 | 0.22 | 18.04 | 2.56 | 14.22 |
| HP | 3 | 8.30 | 2.62 | 1.51 | 1.80 | 14.79 | 5.34 | 10.31 | |
| DFP | 4 | 9.93 | 3.70 | 1.85 | 4.04 | 15.83 | 4.73 | 13.43 | |
| DP | 4 | 7.13 | 4.71 | 2.36 | −0.37 | 14.63 | 3.93 | 14.13 | |
| Phenolic C | HO | 4 | 6.42 | 3.49 | 1.75 | 0.86 | 11.98 | 2.09 | 10.06 |
| HP | 3 | 8.32 | 2.27 | 1.31 | 2.68 | 13.96 | 5.96 | 10.49 | |
| DFP | 4 | 8.92 | 2.66 | 1.33 | 4.69 | 13.16 | 5.45 | 11.81 | |
| DP | 4 | 6.76 | 4.78 | 2.39 | −0.84 | 14.36 | 3.19 | 13.81 | |
| Aryl-C | HO | 4 | 9.81 | 6.22 | 3.11 | −0.08 | 19.70 | 2.75 | 16.21 |
| HP | 3 | 11.38 | 4.50 | 2.60 | 0.21 | 22.55 | 6.68 | 15.64 | |
| DFP | 4 | 12.77 | 3.97 | 1.98 | 6.45 | 19.08 | 7.84 | 17.21 | |
| DP | 4 | 9.55 | 6.34 | 3.17 | −0.54 | 19.64 | 4.77 | 18.85 | |
| di- | HO | 4 | 8.34 | 5.19 | 2.59 | 0.09 | 16.60 | 1.97 | 13.58 |
| HP | 3 | 10.15 | 3.15 | 1.82 | 2.32 | 17.99 | 6.67 | 12.82 | |
| DFP | 4 | 11.27 | 2.81 | 1.40 | 6.80 | 15.74 | 8.59 | 14.61 | |
| DP | 4 | 7.53 | 5.65 | 2.83 | −1.46 | 16.53 | 3.16 | 15.79 | |
| HO | 4 | 25.32 | 14.22 | 7.11 | 2.70 | 47.94 | 5.01 | 37.50 | |
| HP | 3 | 28.07 | 2.65 | 1.53 | 21.48 | 34.66 | 25.98 | 31.06 | |
| DFP | 4 | 33.85 | 6.05 | 3.03 | 24.22 | 43.49 | 25.30 | 38.19 | |
| DP | 4 | 23.19 | 16.00 | 8.00 | −2.27 | 48.66 | 9.91 | 43.84 | |
| Metoxyl C | HO | 4 | 9.72 | 6.22 | 3.11 | −0.17 | 19.62 | 2.26 | 15.41 |
| HP | 3 | 13.56 | 9.32 | 5.38 | −9.59 | 36.70 | 5.54 | 23.78 | |
| DFP | 4 | 11.19 | 3.89 | 1.94 | 5.00 | 17.38 | 7.11 | 15.44 | |
| DP | 4 | 7.70 | 5.21 | 2.61 | −0.60 | 15.99 | 4.12 | 15.41 | |
| Alkyl C | HO | 4 | 25.38 | 13.71 | 6.85 | 3.57 | 47.19 | 5.01 | 34.80 |
| HP | 3 | 30.31 | 7.93 | 4.58 | 10.62 | 50.00 | 22.20 | 38.04 | |
| DFP | 4 | 28.95 | 3.82 | 1.91 | 22.87 | 35.02 | 23.82 | 32.25 | |
| DP | 4 | 22.25 | 13.87 | 6.94 | 0.18 | 44.33 | 10.37 | 37.92 | |
| Aromaticity | HO | 4 | 13.28 | 4.01 | 2.01 | 6.90 | 19.67 | 9.38 | 18.44 |
| HP | 3 | 16.49 | 2.97 | 1.72 | 9.11 | 23.87 | 14.40 | 19.89 | |
| DFP | 4 | 17.13 | 4.44 | 2.22 | 10.06 | 24.20 | 13.67 | 23.52 | |
| DP | 4 | 19.61 | 5.16 | 2.58 | 11.40 | 27.82 | 12.81 | 24.33 | |
| Recalcitrancy | HO | 4 | 0.76 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.69 | 0.83 | 0.70 | 0.80 |
| HP | 3 | 0.77 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.60 | 0.95 | 0.69 | 0.82 | |
| DFP | 4 | 0.74 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.66 | 0.82 | 0.68 | 0.79 | |
| DP | 4 | 0.80 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.75 | 0.85 | 0.76 | 0.83 | |
| A/A-O ratio | HO | 4 | 0.59 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.41 | 0.78 | 0.52 | 0.77 |
| HP | 3 | 0.60 | 0.16 | 0.09 | 0.20 | 1.01 | 0.46 | 0.78 | |
| DFP | 4 | 0.52 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.46 | 0.57 | 0.47 | 0.56 | |
| DP | 4 | 0.59 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.41 | 0.77 | 0.51 | 0.74 | |
HP, healthy pine; DFP, defoliated pine; DP, dead pine; H-O, Holm-oaks.
Values of different environmental parameters in the four studied microhabitats
| HP | DFP | DP | H-O | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature (°C) | 14.1 (0.2) | 13.9 (0.2) | 13.9 (0.1) | 13.9 (0.1) |
| Soil Moisture (g g−1) | 31.4a | 59.1b | 35.6ab | 30.4a |
| Soil Respiration (mmol m−2 s−1) | 1.8 (0.1)a | 2.2 (0.1)ab | 2.7 (0.2)b | 1.8 (0.1)a |
| Root Biomass (g cm−2) | 9.7 (1.8) | 17.8 (4.7) | 18.3 (4.7) | 16.0 (2.8) |
| Root C/N ratio | 36.8 (3.8) | 31.0 (8.7) | 35.7 (5.9) | 35.6 (6.1) |
| SOM (g cm−2) | 2.6 (0.1) | 2.7 (0.5) | 2.3 (0.1) | 2.2 (0.1) |
| SOM C (%) | 24.3 (3.0) | 28.0 (1.9) | 24.4 (3.6) | 24.4 (1.8) |
| SOM N (%) | 1.1 (0.1) | 1.3 (0.1) | 1.2 (0.1) | 1.2 (0.1) |
| SOM C/N ratio | 21.4 (0.3) | 22.0 (0.1) | 21.1 (0.3) | 20.6 (0.2) |
| pH | 6.0 (0.1)a | 6.2 (0.04)ab | 6.4 (0.1)b | 6.2 (0.1)ab |
| Competitiveness (Hegyi) | 3.9 (5.4)a | 1.8 (0.2)a | 1.8 (0.2)ab | 4.6 (3.1)b |
HP, healthy pine; DFP, defoliated pine; DP, dead pine; H-O, Holm-oaks; SOM, soil organic matter.
In brackets, standard error of the mean. Different letters indicate significant differences between microhabitats at the 0.05 significant level (one-way ANOVA).
Chemical composition (mean and standard deviation in brackets) of leaves of the two studied species, according to the data obtained from the Ecological and Forestry Catalan inventory for the studied location
| g per 100 g | ||
|---|---|---|
| C | 51.3 (3.1) | 49.6 (1.5) |
| N | 1.3 (0.2) | 1.4 (0.25) |
| P | 0.11 (0.03) | 0.09 (0.03) |
| S | 0.12 (0.05) | 0.13 (0.05) |
| Ca | 0.62 (0.21) | 0.92 (0.29) |
| Mg | 0.14 (0.04) | 0.15 (0.06) |
| K | 0.48 (0.21) | 0.54 (0.18) |
Figure 3Cladogram of the four microbioma rizospheres based on Jaccard distance. Pie charts below each branch represent the relative abundance of the different phyla. Values of the analysis of molecular variance performed in pair-wise comparisons are provided on the right corner. See Table 1 for abbreviations.
Figure 5Differences in the relative abundance of the most representative soil bacterial orders in relation to the respective average relative abundance among the four sampled microhabitats (three pine dieback stages and holm oak). Taxa were arranged in panels according to their relative abundance. Different letters indicate significant differences between microhabitats at the 0.001 P-level using the approach reported in Cole et al. (2007, 2009). Solirubrobact = Solirubrobacterias; Acidimicrob = Acidimicrobia; Sphingomonad = Sphingomonadales.
Number of taxa (genus) that comprise each of the phylum/class/orders of Figures 3 and 4
| Phylum/class | HO | HP | DFP | DP | Order | HO | HP | DFP | DP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actinobacteria | 32 | 24 | 30 | 44 | Actinomycetales | 37 | 38 | 37 | 54 |
| Acidimicrobiales | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | |||||
| Solirubrobacterales | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||||
| α-Proteobacteria | 31 | 31 | 28 | 40 | Myxococcales | 5 | 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Sphingomonadales | 3 | 4 | 4 | 6 | |||||
| Bacteroidetes | 17 | 16 | 12 | 22 | Sphingobacteriales | 15 | 15 | 17 | 26 |
| Flavobacteriales | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | |||||
| β-Proteobacteria | 16 | 15 | 15 | 21 | Burkholderiales | 15 | 14 | 15 | 20 |
| Rhizobiales | 21 | 22 | 21 | 26 | |||||
| Acidobacteria | 12 | 10 | 11 | 13 | |||||
| Gemmatimonadetes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| γ-Proteobacteria | 13 | 9 | 10 | 15 | Legionellales | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Xanthomonadales | 11 | 9 | 9 | 13 | |||||
| δ-Proteobacteria | 4 | 5 | 5 | 7 | |||||
| Planctomyces | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | |||||
| Verrucomicrobia | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||
| Chloroflexibacterias | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
HP, healthy pine; DFP, defoliated pine; DP, dead pine; H-O, Holm-oaks.
Figure 4Differences in the relative abundance of the most representative soil bacterial phyla/classes (Proteobacteria is presented at the class level) in relation to the respective average in relative abundance among the four sampled microhabitats (three pine dieback stages and holm-oak). Taxa were arranged in panels according to their relative abundance, that is, Actinobacteria being on average the most abundant and Chloroflexibacteria on average the less abundant of the reported taxa. Different letters indicate significant differences between microhabitats at the 0.001 P-level using the approach reported in Cole et al. (2007, 2009). Alphaprot. = AlphaProteobacteria; Betaprot. = BetaProteobacteria; Gemmat. = Gemmatimonas; Gammaprot. = GammaProteobacteria; Deltaprot. = DeltaProteobacteria; Chloroflexi = Chloroflexibacteria.