Yaling Zhang1, Manyun Zhang2, Li Tang2,3, Rongxiao Che2,3, Hong Chen4, Tim Blumfield5,6, Sue Boyd5,6, Mone Nouansyvong2, Zhihong Xu7. 1. Environmental Futures Research Institute, School of Natural Sciences, Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, 4111, Australia. yaling.zhang@griffithuni.edu.au. 2. Environmental Futures Research Institute, School of Natural Sciences, Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, 4111, Australia. 3. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China. 4. Soil and Environment Analysis Centre, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, 210008, China. 5. Centre for Forestry and Horticultural Research, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia. 6. School of Biomolecular and Physical Sciences, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia. 7. Environmental Futures Research Institute, School of Natural Sciences, Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, 4111, Australia. zhihong.xu@griffith.edu.au.
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.
Harvest residues contain large stores of carbon (C) and n class="Chemical">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.
Authors: T Z DeSantis; P Hugenholtz; N Larsen; M Rojas; E L Brodie; K Keller; T Huber; D Dalevi; P Hu; G L Andersen Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Martin Hartmann; Charles G Howes; David VanInsberghe; Hang Yu; Dipankar Bachar; Richard Christen; Rolf Henrik Nilsson; Steven J Hallam; William W Mohn Journal: ISME J Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 10.302
Authors: Magali De la Cruz-Barrón; Alejandra Cruz-Mendoza; Yendi E Navarro-Noya; Victor M Ruiz-Valdiviezo; Daniel Ortíz-Gutiérrez; Daniel A Ramírez-Villanueva; Marco Luna-Guido; Cristian Thierfelder; Patrick C Wall; Nele Verhulst; Bram Govaerts; Luc Dendooven Journal: Microb Ecol Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 4.552
Authors: Adam J Book; Gina R Lewin; Bradon R McDonald; Taichi E Takasuka; Drew T Doering; Aaron S Adams; Joshua A V Blodgett; Jon Clardy; Kenneth F Raffa; Brian G Fox; Cameron R Currie Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: J Gregory Caporaso; Christian L Lauber; William A Walters; Donna Berg-Lyons; James Huntley; Noah Fierer; Sarah M Owens; Jason Betley; Louise Fraser; Markus Bauer; Niall Gormley; Jack A Gilbert; Geoff Smith; Rob Knight Journal: ISME J Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 10.302
Authors: Wakene C Negassa; Andrey K Guber; Alexandra N Kravchenko; Terence L Marsh; Britton Hildebrandt; Mark L Rivers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Micaela Tosi; John Drummelsmith; Dasiel Obregón; Inderjot Chahal; Laura L Van Eerd; Kari E Dunfield Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 4.996