| Literature DB >> 24550895 |
Maria Mooshammer1, Wolfgang Wanek1, Sophie Zechmeister-Boltenstern2, Andreas Richter1.
Abstract
Terrestrial microbial decomposer communities thrive on a wide range of class="Disease">organic matter types that rarely ever meet their elemeclass="Chemical">ntal demaclass="Chemical">nds. Iclass="Chemical">n this review we syclass="Chemical">nthesize the curreclass="Chemical">nt state-of-the-art of microbial adaptatioclass="Chemical">ns to resource stoichiometry, iclass="Chemical">n order to gaiclass="Chemical">n a deeper uclass="Chemical">nderstaclass="Chemical">ndiclass="Chemical">ng of the iclass="Chemical">nteractioclass="Chemical">ns betweeclass="Chemical">n heterotrophic microbial commuclass="Chemical">nities aclass="Chemical">nd their chemical eclass="Chemical">nviroclass="Chemical">nmeclass="Chemical">nt. The stoichiometric imbalaclass="Chemical">nce betweeclass="Chemical">n microbial commuclass="Chemical">nities aclass="Chemical">nd theirEntities:
Keywords: Ecological stoichiometry; carbon/nutrient use efficiency; elemental imbalance; extracellular enzymes; homeostasis; mineralization; organic matter decomposition; soil microbial communities
Year: 2014 PMID: 24550895 PMCID: PMC3910245 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00022
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Globally averaged element ratios in potential resources and in soil microbial biomass, and stoichiometric imbalances between resources and microbes calculated as the ratio of C:N (or C:P, N:P) over C:N (or C:P, N:P).
| Organic material | Molar C:N:P | C:N imbalance | C:P imbalance | N:P imbalance | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wood | 14,103 (±2,898):40 (±13):1 | 50 | 336 | 7 | |
| Dead roots | 4,184 (±991):43 (±4):1 | 14 | 100 | 7 | |
| Leaf litter | 3,055 (±181):43 (±1):1 | 10 | 73 | 7 | |
| Soil organic matter | 287 (±25):17 (±1):1 | 2 | 7 | 3 | |
| Soil microbes | 42 (±4):6 (±0.4):1 |
Relationships between soil organic carbon (SOC) content, soil C:N:P and microbial biomass C:N:P.
| Relationship | Equation | Estimate | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1% SOC | 50% SOC | ||||||
| Soil C:N vs. SOC (%) | Soil C:N = 13.1 + 0.523 × SOC | 2135 | 0.577 | 0.333 | <0.001 | 13.6 | 39.2 |
| Soil C:P vs. SOC (%) | Soil C:P = 126 + 29.7 × SOC | 528 | 0.650 | 0.423 | <0.001 | 156 | 1611 |
| Soil N:P vs. SOC (%) | Soil N:P = 9.42 + 0.920 × SOC | 506 | 0.505 | 0.255 | <0.001 | 10.3 | 55.4 |
| Mic C:N vs. SOC (%) | Mic C:N = 8.13 + 0.041 × SOC | 1108 | 0.076 | 0.005 | 0.012 | 8.2 | 10.2 |
| Mic C:P vs. SOC (%) | Mic C:P = 64.2 + 0.730 × SOC | 561 | 0.088 | 0.008 | 0.037 | 64.9 | 100.7 |
| Mic N:P vs. SOC (%) | Mic N:P = 7.16 + 0.067 × SOC | 440 | 0.084 | 0.007 | 0.079 | 7.2 | 10.5 |
| Mic C:N vs. soil C:N | Mic C:N = 7.81 + 0.031 × soil C:N | 1023 | 0.063 | 0.004 | 0.044 | 7.8 | 9.4 |
| Mic C:N vs. soil C:N (log–log) | 0.121 | 0.014 | <0.001 | ||||
| Mic C:P vs. soil C:P | Mic C:P = 66.5 + 0.015 × soil C:P | 405 | 0.078 | 0.006 | 0.118 | 66.5 | 67.3 |
| Mic C:P vs. soil C:P (log–log) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.992 | ||||
| Mic N:P vs. soil N:P | Mic N:P = 6.81 + 0.046 × soil N:P | 294 | 0.102 | 0.010 | 0.081 | 6.9 | 9.1 |
| Mic N:P vs. soil N:P (log–log) | -0.097 | 0.009 | 0.091 | ||||