| Literature DB >> 23526933 |
Wyatt H Hartman1, Curtis J Richardson.
Abstract
BACKGROUEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23526933 PMCID: PMC3602520 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057127
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Global stoichiometric scaling of C, N, and P contents of soil and microbial biomass pools.
Relationships in plots show variation in A) C∶N ratios B) C∶P ratios C) N∶P ratios of soils, microbial biomass, and combined data. Data were log10 transformed transformed to improve normality and plotted to express size dependent relationships in comparison to the Redfield (1958) ratios (solid black lines). Dashed lines are regression fits for all global soils, with correlation coeficients in plain text and parameters estimated by SMA given in Table 1. Global relationships were compared with fits obtained using different subsets of habitat types, and where slopes were significantly different we plotted fits as dotted lines, with correlation coeficients given in italics. Soil C∶N scaling (A) was different in litter and organic soils (wetland organic, boreal forest, and humic horizons), while forest and pasture soils were different from global relationships in soil and microbial C∶P (B) and soil N∶P (C). SMA regression parameters for these relationships using subsets of our data are given in Table S1.
Summary of SMA regressions of log10-transformed C, N, and P contents in soil and microbial pools, along with predictors of soil C mineralization (CO2) and microbial metabolism (qCO2).
| Analysis |
|
|
| r2 | Int. | Slope | x∶y ratio | x∶y mean | CV | ||
| Soil allometry | *C | N | 280 | 0.86 | −0.77 |
| C∶N | 18.8 | ± | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| *C | P | 261 | 0.18 | 0.23 |
| C∶P | 445 | ± | 43 | 1.6 | |
| *N | P | 261 | 0.24 | 0.27 |
| N∶P | 21.4 | ± | 1.7 | 1.3 | |
| Microbial allometry | MBC | MBN | 237 | 0.84 | −1.11 |
| mC∶N | 10.7 | ± | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| *MBC | MBP | 298 | 0.70 | −2.07 |
| mC∶P | 87.2 | ± | 13.2 | 2.6 | |
| MBN | MBP | 267 | 0.71 | −0.79 | 1.04 | mN∶P | 9 | ± | 1.2 | 2.2 | |
| Microbial biomass | C | MBC | 289 | 0.75 | −1.34 |
| MBC∶C | 2.01% | ± | 0.08 | 0.6 |
| N | MBC | 266 | 0.73 | −0.52 | 0.99 | ||||||
| *P | MBC | 247 | 0.132 | 0.08 |
| ||||||
| Respiration and metabolism | MBC | CO2 | 92 | 0.7 | −4.17 |
| |||||
| **mC∶P |
| 92 | 0.21 | 1.97 |
| ||||||
| **Pi |
| 38 | 0.44 | 0.51 |
|
Bivariate relationships were significant (P<0.001) for all relationships shown. Slopes significantly different from one (P>0.05) are shown in boldface font. Slopes not different from one (not bold) indicate an isometric (linear) relationship among parameters. The geometric mean and standard errors (SE) of stoichiometric ratios (x∶y ratio, x∶y mean) are given for reference, but are not representative where allometric slopes are different than 1. The coefficient of variation (CV) of these stoichiometric ratios is provided as a dimensionless index of dispersion about the mean. Single asterisks (*) indicate where different slopes are observed by considering only forest and pasture soils (Table S1), and ** indicates relationships fit for all soils excluding litter and humus.
Figure 2Differences in N∶P stoichiometry of soil microbial biomass among global vegetation and land use categories.
Letters on x-axis above the plot show group differences among vegetation types (using Tukey's tests), and number of samples for each vegetation type are given on the lower x-axis. Overall variance described by vegetation (R2 = 0.193, p<0.001) was determined using a general linear model. Solid horizontal line is the Redfield (1958) ratio N∶P = 16∶1, dashed line is average microbial N∶P (6.9) reported in [10].
Figure 3Estimated differences in stoichiometric scaling of microbial C, N, and P by land use/vegetation categories.
Estimated SMA regression fit lines for each land use and vegetation category are shown to express habitat level differences in scaling of microbial biomass A) C∶N ratios, B) C∶P ratios, and C) N∶P ratios, with data log10 transformed for normality. Bold lines are colored by land use and vegetation category, and treatments without significant fits are not shown. Colored solid lines indicate relationships where slopes were not equal to 1, while slopes not significantly different from 1 are are displayed as bold colored dotted lines. Thin black dotted lines show the regression fits for all groups combined (the same as in Fig. 1), while thin black solid lines indicate the Redfield ratios (C∶N∶P = 106∶16∶1). Individual plots for each regression fit by land use and vegetation categories are given in Figure S4, with parameters estimated by SMA provided in Tables S3, S4, S5, along with results of intercept and slope tests, and multiple comparisons of these parameters.
Figure 4Scaling of soil microbial biomass C (MBC) with soil C, N, and P pools.
Relationships in plots show variation in MBC with A) soil C, B) soil N, and C) soil P. Outliers from the general relationship between MBC and soil C in A), including floodplain mineral soils [95] and arctic tundra [96] were removed prior to fitting regressions, and data were log10 transformed to improve normality. Solid lines are the 1∶1 isometric lines based on the geometric mean ratio of each scaling relationship. Dashed lines are regression fits for all global soils, with correlation coeficients in plain text and parameters estimated by SMA given in Table 1. Global relationships were compared with fits obtained using only data from forests and pastures, and where slopes were significantly different from all combined treatments we plotted fits as dotted lines, with correlation coeficients given in italics. SMA regression parameters fit using only forest and pasture soils are given in Table S1. Regressions were also tested seperately with only litter and organic soils data, but were these relationships were not significant.
Figure 5Carbon mineralization rates (CO2) varied with A) microbial biomass C (MBC) and B) soil pH.
C mineralization rates were measured in glass jar incubations in studies with concurrent measurements of microbial biomass C, N, and P. Dashed line in A) is the regression fit, and solid line is the 1∶1 isometric line based on the geometric mean ratio of CO2 to MBC (mean qCO2). Parameters estimated by SMA are given in Table 1. SMA regressions fit using only forest and pasture soils (parameters in Table S1) are not shown as they were essentially the same as the global relationships.
Figure 6Factors influencing microbial metabolic quotients (qCO2) of soil incubations.
Significant factors included A) microbial C∶P ratios, B) available inorganic P, and C) soil pH. qCO2 was calculated as the mol/mol ratio of C mineralization rates measured in glass jar incubations per unit microbial biomass C obtained from the same soils, with units of mmol CO2-C/h/mol MBC-C/g soil. Relationships of qCO2 with microbial C∶P (A), and inorganic P (B) were fit without data from litter or soil humic horizons. Data were log10 transformed for normality and parameters estimated by SMA are given in Table 1. SMA regressions fit using only forest and pasture soils (parameters in Table S1) are not shown as they were essentially the same as the global relationships.