Literature DB >> 32218461

A global database of soil nematode abundance and functional group composition.

Johan van den Hoogen1, Stefan Geisen2, Diana H Wall3, David A Wardle4, Walter Traunspurger5, Ron G M de Goede6, Byron J Adams7, Wasim Ahmad8, Howard Ferris9, Richard D Bardgett10, Michael Bonkowski11, Raquel Campos-Herrera12, Juvenil E Cares13, Tancredi Caruso14, Larissa de Brito Caixeta13, Xiaoyun Chen15, Sofia R Costa16, Rachel Creamer6, José Mauro da Cunha E Castro17, Marie Dam18, Djibril Djigal19, Miguel Escuer20, Bryan S Griffiths21, Carmen Gutiérrez20, Karin Hohberg22, Daria Kalinkina23, Paul Kardol24, Alan Kergunteuil25, Gerard Korthals26, Valentyna Krashevska27, Alexey A Kudrin28, Qi Li29, Wenju Liang29, Matthew Magilton30, Mariette Marais31, José Antonio Rodríguez Martín32, Elizaveta Matveeva23, El Hassan Mayad33, E Mzough33, Christian Mulder34, Peter Mullin35, Roy Neilson36, T A Duong Nguyen11,37, Uffe N Nielsen38, Hiroaki Okada39, Juan Emilio Palomares Rius40, Kaiwen Pan41, Vlada Peneva42, Loïc Pellissier43,44, Julio Carlos Pereira da Silva45, Camille Pitteloud43, Thomas O Powers35, Kirsten Powers35, Casper W Quist46,47, Sergio Rasmann48, Sara Sánchez Moreno49, Stefan Scheu27,50, Heikki Setälä51, Anna Sushchuk23, Alexei V Tiunov52, Jean Trap53, Mette Vestergård54, Cecile Villenave53,55, Lieven Waeyenberge56, Rutger A Wilschut26, Daniel G Wright57, Aidan M Keith57, Jiue-In Yang58, Olaf Schmidt59, R Bouharroud60, Z Ferji61, Wim H van der Putten26,47, Devin Routh62, Thomas W Crowther63.   

Abstract

As the most abundant animals on earth, nematodes are a dominant component of the soil community. They play critical roles in regulating biogeochemical cycles and vegetation dynamics within and across landscapes and are an indicator of soil biological activity. Here, we present a comprehensive global dataset of soil nematode abundance and functional group composition. This dataset includes 6,825 georeferenced soil samples from all continents and biomes. For geospatial mapping purposes these samples are aggregated into 1,933 unique 1-km pixels, each of which is linked to 73 global environmental covariate data layers. Altogether, this dataset can help to gain insight into the spatial distribution patterns of soil nematode abundance and community composition, and the environmental drivers shaping these patterns.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32218461      PMCID: PMC7099023          DOI: 10.1038/s41597-020-0437-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Data        ISSN: 2052-4463            Impact factor:   6.444


Background & Summary

To generate a global and quantitative understanding of the biogeography of soil organisms, critical players in global biogeochemistry, large and comprehensive datasets are needed. Due to methodological challenges and the labor-intensiveness of characterizing soil biota, many previous studies have focused on a relatively limited number of spatially distinct sampling sites. Whilst these studies are valuable to dissect local and regional scale patterns, they may not hold the depth of information that is needed to feed global-scale models[1]. Soil nematodes are present in all trophic levels in the soil food web, play central roles in regulating carbon and nutrient dynamics, control soil microorganism populations[2-4] and, consequently, are good indicators of biological activity in soils[5]. Here, we present a dataset of 6,825 spatially distinct soil nematode samples from all terrestrial biomes and continents, an updated version of the dataset that was originally used to create a global map of soil nematode abundance and community composition[6]. The original version contained 6,759 samples; the updated version that we present here contains 66 additional samples located in Ireland. This dataset can prove useful to disentangle the effects of environmental drivers of soil nematode abundance and community composition across broad spatial scales. The original version of this dataset was used to create a high-resolution map of soil nematode abundance, which revealed that nematodes are present in higher densities in sub-Arctic regions compared to tropical and temperate regions[6]. Soil properties are the primary drivers of soil nematode abundance, whereas climatic conditions have an indirect effect by altering soil conditions[6]. The overall latitudinal gradient, with decreasing abundance towards the equator, is the inverse of patterns often observed in aboveground organisms, but is in line with what has been shown for other belowground biota[7,8]. Besides data on the total number of nematodes per sample, the dataset contains quantification of the abundance of individuals in different functional groups of soil nematodes classified according to five feeding guilds[9]: bacterivores, fungivores, herbivores, omnivores, predators. For geospatial mapping, these sampling data were aggregated into 1,933 unique 30 Arc-seconds pixels (~1 km2 at the equator) and combined with 73 global covariate layers including information on soil physiochemical properties, and vegetation, climate, and topographic, anthropogenic, and spectral reflectance information. We intend to continue expanding the dataset and are open to contributions of additional data.

Methods

Data collection

The methods described here are expanded versions of descriptions in our related work[6]. The dataset encompasses georeferenced data on soil nematode abundances according to trophic groups, which were assigned according to Yeates et al.[9]. In total, the dataset contains 6,825 georeferenced samples collected in the top 15 cm of soils, including 66 additional samples compared to the dataset used in our related work[6]. Across all samples, 67.2% originate from natural sites and 32.8% from agricultural or managed sites. Nematodes were extracted from soil using standard elutriation methods, including the Baermann funnel method[10], sugar-floatation/centrifugation[11,12], decanting and sieving[13], Oostenbrink elutriation[14], Whitehead tray[15] and Seinhorst elutriation[16]. These methods may include variations of the original methods. Most samples present in the dataset were obtained using the Baermann funnel method, followed by Oostenbrink elutriation and sugar-flotation (Jenkins/Freckman) (Fig. 1). Per-sample method descriptions, sampling depth, and data provider information are available via figshare[17]. For previously published data, we provide references to the original publications of the respective samples.
Fig. 1

Nematode extraction methods used. The majority of the samples were processed using the Baermann funnel method and Oostenbrink elutriation.

Nematode extraction methods used. The majority of the samples were processed using the Baermann funnel method and Oostenbrink elutriation.

Environmental metadata: soil, climate, topography, vegetation, anthropogenic characteristics

For all sampling locations we provide paired environmental metadata, which can be used to provide insight into the environmental drivers of soil nematode abundance and community composition across spatial scales. To do so, we first prepared a covariate stack of 73 layers, for which we downloaded the covariate layers as geotiff files. Next, all layers were resampled and reprojected to a unified pixel grid in EPSG:4326 (WGS84) at 30 arc-seconds resolution. Layers with a higher original pixel resolution were downsampled using a mean aggregation method; layers with a lower original resolution were resampled using simple upsampling (i.e. without interpolation) to align with the higher resolution grid. Next, all layers were converted into a multiband image, i.e. the covariate stack, that was used for pixel sampling. To prepare the dataset for this purpose, we first need to match the resolution of the dataset to that of the global covariate layer stack that contains the environmental metadata: 30 arc-seconds, which corresponds to approximately 1-km2 at the equator. In this step, we aggregate all data points falling within the same pixel by taking the mean value, resulting in 1,933 unique pixels. We stress that the covariate layer stack has no coverage in Antarctica and therefore the 503 samples located in this region were dropped at the pixel aggregation step. Next, pixel values across the 73 layers were retrieved and stored as a csv file. This dataset is available via figshare[17]. We stress that, as some covariate layers were reprocessed since the publication of the nematode mapping study[6], there are some slight differences in the sampled covariate data in this updated version. The approach is visualized in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2

Data processing approach. 6,825 georeferenced samples are included in the raw dataset. These sampling locations represent 1,933 unique 30 arc-seconds pixels (~1 km at the equator), or 1,895 pixels excluding locations falling off the covariate grid. To gain mechanistic insights and discern the major environmental drivers of nematode abundance, these pixels were sampled across 73 global covariate layers.

Data processing approach. 6,825 georeferenced samples are included in the raw dataset. These sampling locations represent 1,933 unique 30 arc-seconds pixels (~1 km at the equator), or 1,895 pixels excluding locations falling off the covariate grid. To gain mechanistic insights and discern the major environmental drivers of nematode abundance, these pixels were sampled across 73 global covariate layers. Full metadata, including descriptions, units, and source information of all global covariate layers are available via figshare[17]. In short, information about soil texture and physiochemical properties was obtained from SoilGrids[18], limited to the upper soil layer (top 15 cm). Climate information was obtained from WorldClim[19] (version 2), which includes climate data averaged across 1970–2000 (http://www.worldclim.org/). Plant productivity data (i.e. EVI, NDVI, Gpp, Npp) and spectral reflectance data were obtained from Google Earth Engine (https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/). Aridity index and potential evapotranspiration layers were obtained from CGIAR[20] (version 1) (http://www.cgiar-csi.org/data/global-aridity-and-pet-database). Anthropogenic information (i.e. human development, population density) was obtained from WCS[21] (http://wcshumanfootprint.org) and from Tuanmu and Jetz[22]. Aboveground biomass data was obtained from CDIAC[23] (https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/epubs/ndp/global_carbon/carbon_documentation.html). Radiation data was obtained from CliMond[24] (https://www.climond.org/BioclimRegistry.aspx#BioclimFAQ). WWF Ecoregion classifications were used to categorize sampling locations into biomes (https://www.worldwildlife.org/biome-categories/terrestrial-ecoregions).

Data Records

All data are available via figshare[17]. Raw nematode abundance data (6,825 samples) are available as a csv file: “nematode_full_dataset_wBiome.csv”. Sample IDs 20001–20066 are samples not present in our related work[6]. Abundance data aggregated into 30 Arc-seconds pixels (1,933 unique locations), combined with environmental covariate data are available as a csv file: “nematode_abundance_aggregated_wCovar.csv”. Full metadata, including descriptions, units, and source information, of all global covariate layers are available as a csv file: “metadata.csv”.

Technical Validation

Soil nematode abundances are highly variable within and across terrestrial biomes[6]. On average, the number of nematodes per 100 g dry soil is in the few hundred – few thousand range (median = 859, mean = 2,671), although the highest recorded abundances exceed 20,000 nematodes per 100 g dry soil. Across biomes, bacterivores are the most abundant trophic group and predatory nematodes the least abundant (Table 1). Overall, the highest abundances are observed in tundra (median = 2,695 nematodes per 100 g dry soil), temperate broadleaf forest (median = 2,119) and in boreal forest (median = 2,016) soils. The lowest abundances are observed in Mediterranean forest (median = 374), flooded grasslands (median = 124), Antarctic (median = 89) and hot desert (median = 44) soils (Fig. 3, Table 2). We stress that these numbers slightly differ from the values reported in our accompanying paper[6], where we reported the aggregated pixel median values.
Table 1

Mean and median nematode abundances, per trophic group.

Groupmeanmediann
Bacterivores10522506788
Fungivores438846782
Herbivores6561716784
Omnivores325416787
Predators11966706
Total_Number26538576825

Values are reported as the number of nematodes per 100 g dry soil.

Fig. 3

Nematode communities vary across biomes. The median and interquartile range of nematode abundances (n = 6,825) per biome from all continents.

Table 2

Mean and median nematode abundances, per biome.

Biomemeanmediann
Tundra72982695148
Temperate Broadleaf Forests446521202175
Boreal Forests39592016669
Montane Grasslands60961120116
Tropical Coniferous Forests10009708
Temperate Conifer Forests1800670158
Tropical Grasslands863657272
Tropical Moist Forests914601968
Temperate Grasslands945565627
Tropical Dry Forests43043111
Mediterranean Forests619374704
Flooded Grasslands1831247
Antarctica224589503
Deserts19344361

Values are reported as the total number of nematodes per 100 g dry soil.

Mean and median nematode abundances, per trophic group. Values are reported as the number of nematodes per 100 g dry soil. Nematode communities vary across biomes. The median and interquartile range of nematode abundances (n = 6,825) per biome from all continents. Mean and median nematode abundances, per biome. Values are reported as the total number of nematodes per 100 g dry soil. As with any global ecological dataset, combining data from many researchers across the world, there is inherent variation in the data. Also, the different nematode extraction methods may vary in their efficiencies[25,26]. This underscores the need for large datasets for global scale analyses of ecological patterns. When a sufficiently large sample size allows to detect strong patterns through this statistical noise, we can be confident that a biological pattern exists[6]. As a consequence, there may be limitations to the use of the dataset at finer scales. Yet, by subsetting the dataset by extraction method or region, for example, it can serve as a starting point for local scale studies.

Environmental representativeness of the dataset

To evaluate the comprehensiveness of the dataset, we explored the environmental conditions that the sampling locations represent. Across individual environmental variables, the samples represent a wide range of environmental conditions (Fig. 4). To gain spatial insight into the environmental representativeness of the dataset, information that is important when comparing observations across spatial scales, we evaluated how the multidimensional environmental space covered by the dataset compares to the global environmental space. To do so, we used a similar approach as in our previous work[6]. First, we set out to reduce the computational load, as exploring the full stack of 73 global environmental covariate layers across ~210 million terrestrial pixels would require exorbitantly large computing power. To this end, we transformed the set of global environmental covariate layers into Principal Component (PC) space. We reduced the number of selected PCs to 17, collectively explaining more than 90% of variation. Next, we assessed the proportion of the world’s terrestrial pixels falling within convex hulls of the 136 bivariate combinations of the 17 PCs. The resulting map provides a spatially-explicit depiction of the representativeness of the dataset, showing that the majority of the terrestrial pixels fall within these convex hulls, with most of the outliers existing in arid regions such as the Sahara and Arabian Deserts, and in sub-arctic regions such as the far north of Canada and Russia (Fig. 5).
Fig. 4

Environmental representativeness of the dataset. The sampled locations represent a wide range of environmental conditions. For illustrative purposes, ten environmental variables were chosen from the full set of 73.

Fig. 5

Assessment of the representativeness of the dataset in multivariate environmental space. The map displays the percentage of pixels that fall within the convex hulls of the first 17 principal component spaces (collectively covering >90% of the sample space variation).

Environmental representativeness of the dataset. The sampled locations represent a wide range of environmental conditions. For illustrative purposes, ten environmental variables were chosen from the full set of 73. Assessment of the representativeness of the dataset in multivariate environmental space. The map displays the percentage of pixels that fall within the convex hulls of the first 17 principal component spaces (collectively covering >90% of the sample space variation).
Measurement(s)Abundance • Nematoda • environmental factor
Technology Type(s)Elutriative Centrifugation • computational modeling technique
Factor Type(s)geographic location
Sample Characteristic - OrganismNematoda
Sample Characteristic - Environmentsoil environment • climate
Sample Characteristic - LocationEarth (planet)
  2 in total

1.  Feeding habits in soil nematode families and genera-an outline for soil ecologists.

Authors:  G W Yeates; T Bongers; R G De Goede; D W Freckman; S S Georgieva
Journal:  J Nematol       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 1.402

2.  Testing soil nematode extraction efficiency using different variations of the Baermann-funnel method.

Authors:  Simone Cesarz; Annika Eva Schulz; Rémy Beugnon; Nico Eisenhauer
Journal:  Soil Org       Date:  2019-08-06
  2 in total
  10 in total

1.  Increasing Levels of Physical Disturbance Affect Soil Nematode Community Composition in a Previously Undisturbed Ecosystem.

Authors:  Satyendra Kumar Pothula; Gary Phillips; Ernest C Bernard
Journal:  J Nematol       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 1.481

2.  Interactions between Soil Bacterial Diversity and Plant-Parasitic Nematodes in Soybean Plants.

Authors:  Felipe Martins do Rêgo Barros; Alexandre Pedrinho; Lucas William Mendes; Caio César Gomes Freitas; Fernando Dini Andreote
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 5.005

3.  Protist Predation Influences the Temperature Response of Bacterial Communities.

Authors:  Jennifer D Rocca; Andrea Yammine; Marie Simonin; Jean P Gibert
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 5.640

Review 4.  The Use of Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria to Prevent Nematode Damage to Plants.

Authors:  Elisa Gamalero; Bernard R Glick
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2020-11-07

5.  Plant signals differentially affect rhizosphere nematode populations.

Authors:  Ulrike Mathesius; Sofia R Costa
Journal:  J Exp Bot       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 6.992

6.  Whole-genome sequencing and analysis of Streptomyces strains producing multiple antinematode drugs.

Authors:  Jeong Sang Yi; Jung Min Kim; Min-Kyoung Kang; Jong Hoon Kim; Hang Su Cho; Yeon Hee Ban; Myoung Chong Song; Kwang-Hee Son; Yeo Joon Yoon
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2022-08-23       Impact factor: 4.547

7.  Nematodes As Soil Stress Indicators for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: a Review.

Authors:  T Brázová; P Kováčik; M Matoušková; M Oros
Journal:  Helminthologia       Date:  2022-09-03       Impact factor: 1.176

8.  Organic fertilization influences nematode diversity and maturity index in coffee tree plantations using an agroforestry system.

Authors:  Jol Vieira Júnior; R C Pereira; R L Soto; I M Cardoso; E A Mondino; Rll Berbara; E Sá Mendonça
Journal:  J Nematol       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 1.402

9.  Taxonomic profiling of individual nematodes isolated from copse soils using deep amplicon sequencing of four distinct regions of the 18S ribosomal RNA gene.

Authors:  Harutaro Kenmotsu; Kiichi Uchida; Yuu Hirose; Toshihiko Eki
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Bacterial endosymbionts protect beneficial soil fungus from nematode attack.

Authors:  Hannah Büttner; Sarah P Niehs; Koen Vandelannoote; Zoltán Cseresnyés; Benjamin Dose; Ingrid Richter; Ruman Gerst; Marc Thilo Figge; Timothy P Stinear; Sacha J Pidot; Christian Hertweck
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 11.205

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.