| Literature DB >> 28835652 |
Giuliano Bonanomi1, Gaspare Cesarano2, Nadia Lombardi2, Riccardo Motti2, Felice Scala2, Stefano Mazzoleni2, Guido Incerti3.
Abstract
Litter decomposition provides a continuous flow of organic carbon and nutrients that affects plant development and the structure of decomposer communities. Aim of this study was to distinguish the feeding preferences of microbes and plants in relation to litter chemistry. We characterized 36 litter types byEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28835652 PMCID: PMC5569010 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-09145-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Effects of 18 different litter materials, either undecomposed (left) or after 180 days of decomposition (right), on the growth of selected bacteria (top) and fungi (center) and higher plants (bottom). Growth is expressed as percent difference compared to the controls (Nutrient Broth, and PDA and water for bacteria, fungi and plants, respectively). White and gray bars indicate inhibitory and stimulatory effects, respectively. For each bar, data refer to mean ± standard error of 14, 6 and 6 target species for plants, bacteria and fungi, respectively.
Figure 2Growth response of different target organisms (a) and plant functional types (b) to either undecomposed (0 d) or decomposing (180 d) litter. Growth is expressed as percent difference compared to the controls (Nutrient Broth, PDA, and water for bacteria, fungi, and plants, respectively). For each bar, data refer to mean ± standard deviation of different target species (N in brackets) over18 litter types. Asterisks indicate within-group statistically significant differences (***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05), according to Tuckey’s HSD post-hoc tests for the interactive effects of litter age and target organisms (a) and litter age and plant functional type (b) from corresponding GLMMs models in Table 2.
Correlation (Pearson’s r) between bioassay results averaged for different target organisms (i.e. growth of bacteria, fungi and plant functional types) and biochemical quality of the 36 litter types assessed by proximate chemical parameters and 13C-CPMAS NMR data.
| Litter biochemical quality | Microbes | Higher plants | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacteria | Fungi | Annual | Perennial | Woody | All plants | |
|
| ||||||
| Labile C (%) | 0.36 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cellulose (%) | 0.11 | 0.17 | −0.11 | 0.15 | 0.12 | −0.01 |
| N content (%) | −0.09 | −0.14 | 0.16 | −0.05 | −0.21 | −0.02 |
| C/N ratio | 0.27 |
|
| −0.14 | −0.08 | −0.26 |
|
13
| ||||||
| Carboxylic C: 161–190 p.p.m. | −0.06 | −0.10 | 0.21 | −0.20 | −0.22 | −0.05 |
| O-sub. aromatic C: 141–160 p.p.m. | −0.16 | −0.13 | 0.01 | 0.35 |
| 0.28 |
| H- & C-sub. aromatic C: 111–140 p.p.m. | −0.22 | −0.18 | 0.17 | 0.30 | 0.33 | 0.26 |
| di-O-alkyl C: 91–110 p.p.m. | 0.13 | 0.35 | −0.30 | 0.29 | 0.21 | 0.03 |
| O-alkyl C: 61–90 p.p.m. | 0.22 |
| −0.38 | 0.17 | 0.08 | −0.08 |
| Methoxyl and N-alkyl C: 46–60 p.p.m. | −0.30 |
|
| 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.25 |
| Alkyl C: 0–45 p.p.m. | −0.10 | −0.36 | 0.23 | −0.31 | −0.21 | −0.06 |
| Alkyl C/O-alkyl C ratio | −0.15 | −0.40 | 0.28 | −0.28 | −0.18 | −0.02 |
| CC/MC ratio* | 0.00 | −0.15 | 0.07 | −0.08 | −0.05 | 0.00 |
Bold indicates statistically significant values of r (p < 0.025, after controlling for multiple comparison according to Benjamini and Hochberg[74]).
*: CC ⁄ MC: O-alkyl C/methoxyl and N-alkyl C ratio.
Summary of the Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) testing for main and 2nd order interactive effects of litter species (random effect) and age (fixed effect, either 0 or 180 days of decomposition) on bioassay results (i.e. growth of plants, fungi and bacteria, expressed as percentage of the untreated control).
| Effect type | SS | df | MS | F |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Litter species (L) | Random | 766411 | 17 | 45083 | 3.24 | 0.0058 |
| Litter age (A) | Fixed | 212583 | 1 | 212583 | 26.09 | 0.0001 |
| Target organism group (O) | Fixed | 4789183 | 2 | 2394591 | 190.77 | <0.0001 |
| L × A | Random | 207740 | 17 | 12220 | 2.00 | 0.0412 |
| L × O | Random | 426784 | 34 | 12552 | 1.95 | 0.0273 |
| A × O | Fixed | 2488776 | 2 | 1244388 | 193.81 | <0.0001 |
|
| ||||||
| Litter species (L) | Random | 219385 | 17 | 12905 | 2.33 | 0.0459 |
| Litter age (A) | Fixed | 236545 | 1 | 236545 | 15.60 | 0.0049 |
| Target species (T) | Random | 329809 | 5 | 65962 | 5.38 | 0.0425 |
| L × A | Random | 91187 | 17 | 5364 | 2.33 | 0.0057 |
| L × T | Random | 209600 | 85 | 2466 | 1.07 | 0.3723 |
| A × T | Random | 60483 | 5 | 12097 | 5.27 | 0.0003 |
|
| ||||||
| Litter species (L) | Random | 358819 | 17 | 21107 | 2.40 | 0.0353 |
| Litter age (A) | Fixed | 962182 | 1 | 962182 | 44.51 | 0.0001 |
| Target species (T) | Random | 412704 | 5 | 82541 | 5.33 | 0.0406 |
| L × A | Random | 141914 | 17 | 8348 | 4.77 | <0.0001 |
| L × T | Random | 188262 | 85 | 2215 | 1.27 | 0.1397 |
| A × T | Random | 75104 | 5 | 15021 | 8.58 | <0.0001 |
|
| ||||||
| Litter species (L) | Random | 821469 | 17 | 48322 | 9.22 | <0.0001 |
| Litter age (A) | Fixed | 1308116 | 1 | 1308116 | 16.95 | 0.0012 |
| Target species (T) | Random | 2604705 | 13 | 200362 | 2.57 | 0.0492 |
| L × A | Random | 150299 | 17 | 8841 | 2.00 | 0.0123 |
| L × T | Random | 1153846 | 221 | 5221 | 1.19 | 0.1019 |
| A × T | Random | 1003151 | 13 | 77165 | 17.54 | <0.0001 |
|
| ||||||
| Litter species (L) | Random | 853545 | 17 | 50209 | 6.74 | 0.0003 |
| Litter age (A) | Fixed | 1204105 | 1 | 1204105 | 252.35 | <0.0001 |
| Target functional type (F) | Fixed | 1008085 | 2 | 504042 | 65.84 | <0.0001 |
| L × A | Random | 162235 | 17 | 9543 | 1.93 | 0.0490 |
| L × F | Random | 260288 | 34 | 7656 | 1.54 | 0.1060 |
| A × F | Fixed | 721938 | 2 | 360969 | 72.69 | <0.0001 |
GLMMs were tested for all data pooled, including a fixed effect of the group of organisms (3 levels), and separately for plants, fungi and bacteria, including a random effect of target species. In the case of plants, a further GLMM was tested, including the effect of target functional type (3 levels: annual, perennial and woody).
Figure 3Relationships between seed weight and root growth of 14 target plants sown over 36 litter materials, either undecomposed (top) or decomposed for 180 days (bottom). Note logarithmic scale for seed weight. Data refer to mean growth of 10 replicates for each combination of target plant, litter species and age, as compared to the control (gray horizontal dashed line). Logarithmic fit is also reported in each panel, and symbolized with either continuous or dotted black line according to significant or not significant result, respectively.
Figure 4Correlation profiles between the growth of different organisms (bacteria, fungi, annual plants, perennial plants, woody plants) over 36 different litter materials (i.e. fresh and decomposed leaves from 18 species) and 13C-CPMAS NMR spectral signals of the same materials. In each panel, vertical dashed lines refer to main classes of organic C. Horizontal gray lines indicate threshold values for significant correlation (p < 0.01 after controlling for multiple comparison according to Benjamini and Hochberg[74]). Data refer to Pearsons’ r, with mean (solid line) and 95% confidence interval (filled bands) calculated over a different number of target species within each organism type (in brackets). Significant r values are highlighted in dark gray.
Figure 5Principal component analysis of 13C NMR spectral signals recorded in 36 litter types (i.e. fresh and decomposed leaf materials from 18 plant species) in relation to growth response of plants and microbes and litter biochemical quality and age. (a) Loading vectors of spectral signals. Litter biochemical parameters and reference spectral regions (black vectors), as well as growth response of target organisms, averaged for bacteria, fungi, and annual, non-annual, and all plants (red vectors) are plotted as supplementary variables (Legendre and Legendre[75]). (b) Factorial scores of litter types, with decomposition trajectories between 0 and 180 days.