| Literature DB >> 29497766 |
Yaling Zhang1, Manyun Zhang2, Li Tang2,3, Rongxiao Che2,3, Hong Chen4, Tim Blumfield5,6, Sue Boyd5,6, Mone Nouansyvong2, Zhihong Xu7.
Abstract
Harvest residues contain large stores of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) in forest plantations. Decomposing residues can release labile C and N into soil and thus provide substrates for soil bacterial communities. Previous studies showed that residue retention could increase soil C and N pools and activate bacterial communities in the short term (≤ 10 years). The current study examined the effects of a long-term (19-year) harvest residue retention on soil total and water and hot water extractable C and N pools, as well as bacterial communities via Illumina MiSeq sequencing. The experiment was established in a randomised complete block design with four replications, southeast Queensland of Australia, including no (R0), single (R1, 51 to 74 t ha-1 dry matter) and double quantities (R2, 140 t ha-1 dry matter) of residues retained. Generally, no significant differences existed in total C and N, as well as C and N pools extracted by water and hot water among the three treatments, probably due to negligible amounts of labile C and N released from harvest residues. Soil δ15N significantly decreased from R0 to R1 to R2, probably due to reduced N leaching with residue retention (P < 0.001). Residue retention increased the relative abundances of Actinobacteria (P = 0.016) and Spartobacteria (P < 0.001), whereas decreased Betaproteobacteria (P = 0.050). This favour for the oligotrophic groups probably caused the decrease in the bacterial diversity as revealed by Shannon index (P = 0.025). Hence, our study suggests that residue retention is not an appropriate management practice in the long term.Entities:
Keywords: Bacterial composition; Bacterial diversity; Forest plantation; Nuclear magnetic resonance; Residue retention; Soil δ15N
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29497766 DOI: 10.1007/s00248-018-1162-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Ecol ISSN: 0095-3628 Impact factor: 4.552