| Literature DB >> 30181597 |
Ashish A Malik1,2, Jeremy Puissant3, Kate M Buckeridge4, Tim Goodall3, Nico Jehmlich5, Somak Chowdhury6, Hyun Soon Gweon3,7, Jodey M Peyton3, Kelly E Mason8, Maaike van Agtmaal9, Aimeric Blaud10, Ian M Clark10, Jeanette Whitaker8, Richard F Pywell3, Nick Ostle4, Gerd Gleixner6, Robert I Griffiths3.
Abstract
Soil microorganisms act as gatekeepers for soil-atmosphereEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30181597 PMCID: PMC6123395 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05980-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Fig. 1Geographical distribution of sampling sites. Soil sampling locations across Britain are displayed over a soil pH map of Britain created using maptools [https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=maptools] and gstat [https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gstat] packages under the R environment software; pH data was derived from the UK Soils portal (ukso.org). Soils were sampled from 56 sites, and 21 local land use contrasts were available to study the effects of land use intensification. Symbols of sites in close proximity overlap in the map
Fig. 2Relationship between microbial parameters and soil carbon. Regression trends of microbial community CUE–carbon use efficiency (a), turnover or growth rate (b), biomass-specific respiration or qCO2 (c), DNA-C concentrations as biomass proxy (d), extracellular enzyme investment (e), and bacterial taxonomic richness (f) with SOC concentrations across the landscape-scale gradient of soils. Data from all 56 sites with three replicates at each site are presented here as independent points (red circles: pH < 6.2; blue circles: pH > 6.2). In c–f, there were no partitioning of microbial traits across the threshold pH value of 6.2, and the black regression lines include all data points. Best-fitting regression models were: a pH < 6.2: n = 50, y = 0.0004x + 0.01 and pH > 6.2: n = 113, y = 0.01x + 0.02; b pH < 6.2: y = −0.02 ln(x) + 0.05 and pH > 6.2: y = −0.21 ln(x) + 0.55; c all data: n = 163, y = 0.16e−0.12; d all data: y = 5.09x − 0.07; e all data: y = −1.37 ln(x) + 4.87; f all data: y = 11.06x + 962
Fig. 3Model outcome of expected causal relationships. Most fitting paths of causality obtained through structural equation modeling for the two datasets across the soil pH threshold value of 6.2 (pH < 6.2: n = 50, CFI = 1, RMSEA = 0, SRMR = 0.079, AIC = 693, P = 0.67; pH > 6.2: n = 113, CFI = 1, RMSEA = 0, SRMR = 0.039, AIC = 1396, P = 0.57). Percentage figures next to the variables indicate their explained variance (R2). Figures on the arrows indicate standardized path coefficients and asterisks mark their significance; ***<0.001
Characteristics of land use contrasts
| Site pair ID | Site location | Low intensity contrast | High intensity contrast | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management | Soil pH | Soil C % | Management | Soil pH | Soil C % | ||
|
| |||||||
| 1 | Hertfordshire | Unimproved grassland since 1949 | 6.4 | 3.7 | Intensive: arable | 6.4 | 1.6 |
| 2 | Hertfordshire | Unimproved grassland since 1949 | 6.6 | 2.8 | Intensive: arable | 6.9 | 1.5 |
| 3 | Hertfordshire | Unimproved grassland since 1900 | 6.8 | 4 | Intensive: arable | 7.5 | 1 |
| 4 | Bedfordshire | Unimproved grassland since 2002 | 7 | 1.5 | Intensive: arable | 7.2 | 1 |
| 5 | Oxfordshire | Unimproved grassland since 1990 | 6.9 | 2.9 | Intensive: arable | 7.4 | 2.3 |
| 6 | Oxfordshire | Unimproved grassland | 7.5 | 6.3 | Intensive: arable | 7.7 | 2.1 |
| 7 | Oxfordshire | Unimproved wet grassland | 7.6 | 15.7 | Intensive grassland | 7.6 | 8.8 |
| 8 | Cambridgeshire | Unimproved grassland | 7.6 | 7.4 | Intensive: arable | 7.9 | 4 |
| 9 | Devon | Unimproved grassland | 6.7 | 5.1 | Intensive: arable | 6.6 | 4.2 |
| 10 | Lancashire | Unimproved grassland since before 1980 | 6.7 | 6.3 | Intensive grassland | 6.9 | 5 |
| 11 | Wiltshirea | Unimproved calcareous grassland since before 1900 | 7.7 | 10.4 | Intensive: arable | 8 | 3.8 |
|
| |||||||
| 12 | North Lanarkshire | Unimproved grassland since before 1985 | 5.8 | 6.9 | Intensive: arable | 6.4 | 3.8 |
| 13 | Devon | Unimproved wet grassland | 5.7 | 13 | Intensive grassland | 6.4 | 9.4 |
| 14 | Devon | Unimproved wet grassland | 5.3 | 13 | Intensive grassland | 6.4 | 5.7 |
| 15 | Buckinghamshireb | Unimproved grassland | 6.1 | 5.9 | Intensive: arable | 7.7 | 3.6 |
| 16 | Dorset | Unimproved grassland | 5.8 | 3.9 | Intensive grassland | 6.8 | 3.7 |
| 17 | Perthshirea | Unimproved grassland | 5.2 | 23.8 | Intensive grassland | 6.4 | 4.3 |
|
| |||||||
| 18 | North Yorkshire | Unimproved grassland | 5.9 | 9 | Intensive grassland | 5.8 | 7.6 |
| 19 | Devon | Unimproved wet grassland | 5.3 | 9.8 | Intensive grassland | 5.7 | 10.4 |
| 20 | Devona | Unimproved wet grassland | 5.8 | 17 | Intensive grassland | 5.8 | 4.3 |
| 21 | Dorset | Unimproved grassland | 5.6 | 5.2 | Intensive grassland | 6.2 | 3.7 |
Land use histories of the 21 paired low- and high-intensity contrasts and their mean soil pH and carbon concentrations
aPairs used for metaproteomic analysis
bThis contrast was not local; 4 km apart from each other
Fig. 4Land use impact on edaphic properties and microbial traits. Fold change of various edaphic properties and microbial physiological traits in the hypothesized categories of effects of land use intensification. Displayed here is the fold change in the measured parameter on land use intensification for 21 comparable local land use contrasts (no. of contrasts—type 1 (a): 11, type 2 (b): 6, and type 3 (c): 4; Table 1) that was calculated as the ratio of mean parameter values from low and high intensity treatments with three replicates each. Gray points represent means of fold change for each contrast, colored points represent the means across all contrasts, medians are marked by the vertical line inside the box, boxplots show quartile values for each parameter, and the whiskers extend to the highest and lowest values across all contrasts. Dotted line is the boundary indicating identical parameter values across the land use contrasts
Fig. 5Functional indicators of land use change. Pairwise protein indicators of land use change in three representative land use contrasts each belonging to the hypothesized land use intensification effects: a frequency of protein indicators from each soil in KEGG main functional classification; b relative abundance of the most numerous protein indicators at level 3 classification, darker hues denote higher abundance. Each contrast consisted of a low and a high land use intensity treatment with three replicates each