| Literature DB >> 35386880 |
Willem Proesmans1, Christopher Andrews2, Alan Gray2, Rob Griffiths3, Aidan Keith4, Uffe N Nielsen5, David Spurgeon6, Richard Pywell6, Bridget Emmett3, Adam J Vanbergen1,2.
Abstract
Cattle grazing profoundly affects abiotic and biotic characteristics of ecosystems. While most research has been performed on grasslands, the effect of large managed ungulates on forest ecosystems has largely been neglected. Compared to a baseline seminatural state, we investigated how long-term cattle grazing of birch forest patches affected the abiotic state and the ecological community (microbes and invertebrates) of the soil subsystem. Grazing strongly modified the soil abiotic environment by increasing phosphorus content, pH, and bulk density, while reducing the C:N ratio. The reduced C:N ratio was strongly associated with a lower microbial biomass, mainly caused by a reduction of fungal biomass. This was linked to a decrease in fungivorous nematode abundance and the nematode channel index, indicating a relative uplift in the importance of the bacterial energy-channel in the nematode assemblages. Cattle grazing highly modified invertebrate community composition producing distinct assemblages from the seminatural situation. Richness and abundance of microarthropods was consistently reduced by grazing (excepting collembolan richness) and grazing-associated changes in soil pH, Olsen P, and reduced soil pore volume (bulk density) limiting niche space and refuge from physical disturbance. Anecic earthworm species predominated in grazed patches, but were absent from ungrazed forest, and may benefit from manure inputs, while their deep vertical burrowing behavior protects them from physical disturbance. Perturbation of birch forest habitat by long-term ungulate grazing profoundly modified soil biodiversity, either directly through increased physical disturbance and manure input or indirectly by modifying soil abiotic conditions. Comparative analyses revealed the ecosystem engineering potential of large ungulate grazers in forest systems through major shifts in the composition and structure of microbial and invertebrate assemblages, including the potential for reduced energy flow through the fungal decomposition pathway. The precise consequences for species trophic interactions and biodiversity-ecosystem function relationships remain to be established, however.Entities:
Keywords: collembola; earthworms; forest grazing; oribatid and mesostigmatid mites; soil chemistry; soil microbes
Year: 2022 PMID: 35386880 PMCID: PMC8969921 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.8786
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
FIGURE 1(a) Hypothesized causal relations between plant–soil ecosystem components and grazing (note: vegetation–nematode relationship was only tested for phytophagous nematodes). (b) Quantitated relationships between biotic and abiotic components of the plant–soil ecosystem from best subsets of GLMs (AICc). Arrows point in the direction of hypothesized causal relationships (− black/+ gray) with their size proportional to standardized coefficients from the optimal linear model. Dashed lines indicate nonsignificant relationships (p > .05) retained after AICc optimization. For visual purposes, abundance (biomass for earthworms) and not species richness is shown for invertebrates. Vegetation characteristics were not important drivers of other biotic properties and were omitted
FIGURE 2Standardized coefficients from a GLM with grazing treatment as the single explanatory variable of the response of plant–soil ecosystem components to the presence or absence of cattle grazing in forest patches (NS p > .10; o p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001); Veg., Vegetation. Positive values indicate a positive correlation with presence of cattle grazing
Best models for each response variable, based on AICc scores
| Response variable | Expl. vars | Coeff. | SE |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil properties | |||||
| Soil bulk density | Intercept | 0.51 | 0.04 | 12.28 | <.0001 |
| Grazing | 0.11 | 0.06 | 1.82 | .086 | |
| Soil pH | Intercept | 4.90 | 0.13 | 38.73 | <.0001 |
| Grazing | 0.37 | 0.18 | 2.07 | .05 | |
| log(Olsen P + 1) | Intercept | 2.01 | 0.18 | 11.00 | <.0001 |
| Grazing | 1.16 | 0.26 | 4.48 | .0003 | |
| C:N ratio | Intercept | 18.60 | 0.61 | 30.56 | <.0001 |
| Grazing | −3.21 | 0.86 | −3.72 | .0016 | |
| Vegetation | |||||
| Plant species richness | Intercept | −30.29 | 10.86 | −2.79 | .012 |
| Soil pH | 9.52 | 2.13 | 4.47 | .0003 | |
| log(Herb layer cover + 1) | Intercept | 2.48 | 0.14 | 17.68 | <.0001 |
| Grazing | 1.01 | 0.2 | 5.07 | <.0001 | |
| Microbes | |||||
| Bacterial PLFA | Intercept | −49.22 | 32.99 | −1.49 | .15 |
| C:N‐ratio | 6.04 | 1.91 | 3.15 | .006 | |
| Fungal PLFA | Intercept | −26.63 | 8.68 | −3.07 | .007 |
| C:N‐ratio | 2.32 | 0.50 | 4.59 | .0002 | |
| Fungal:bacterial PLFA | Intercept | 0.26 | 0.010 | 25.83 | <.0001 |
| Grazing | −0.069 | 0.014 | −4.74 | .0002 | |
| Nematodes | |||||
| Fungivore nematodes | Intercept | 40.34 | 3.69 | 10.95 | <.0001 |
| Grazing | −30.42 | 5.21 | −5.84 | <.0001 | |
| Predatory nematodes | Intercept | 7.06 | 3.59 | 1.97 | .065 |
| Fungal PLFA | 0.70 | 0.24 | −2.93 | .009 | |
| Nematode richness | Intercept | −1.52 | 10.31 | −0.15 | .88 |
| Soil pH | 6.40 | 2.02 | 3.16 | .005 | |
| Enrichment index | Intercept | 39.54 | 2.76 | 14.33 | <.0001 |
| Grazing | 10.52 | 3.90 | 2.70 | .015 | |
| Channel index | Intercept | 75.04 | 7.38 | 10.17 | <.0001 |
| Grazing | −42.28 | 10.43 | −4.05 | .0007 | |
| Microarthropods | |||||
| Oribatid richness | Intercept | 11.34 | 0.44 | 25.54 | <.0001 |
| Grazing | −2.08 | 0.63 | −3.31 | .004 | |
| Mesostigmatid richness | Intercept | 2.03 | 0.54 | 3.74 | .002 |
| Orib. sp. rich | 0.13 | 0.05 | 2.58 | .02 | |
| Collembolan abundance | Intercept | 63.78 | 7.33 | 8.70 | <.0001 |
| Soil pH | −24.30 | 10.37 | −2.34 | .03 | |
| log(Oribatid abundance + 1) | Intercept | 13.05 | 1.24 | 10.51 | <.0001 |
| Olsen P | −0.034 | 0.006 | −5.57 | <.0001 | |
| Soil pH | −1.37 | 0.25 | −5.39 | <.0001 | |
| Bulk density | −2.28 | 0.77 | −2.95 | .009 | |
| Mesostigmatid abundance | Intercept | 9.44 | 1.88 | 5.03 | <.0001 |
| Oribatid ab. | 0.13 | 0.02 | 8.22 | <.0001 | |
| Earthworms | |||||
| log(Earthworm biomass + 1) | Intercept | 0.66 | 0.24 | 2.76 | .013 |
| Grazing | 1.02 | 0.34 | 2.98 | .008 | |
| Epigeic biomass | Intercept | 0.36 | 0.25 | 1.45 | .17 |
| Bacterial PLFA | 0.093 | 0.036 | 2.56 | .021 | |
| Fungal PLFA | −0.022 | 0.011 | −1.98 | .065 | |
| log(Anecic biomass + 1) | Intercept | 0.00 | 0.22 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| Grazing | 1.09 | 0.31 | 3.50 | .003 | |
Variables that were best explained by an intercept only model (%C, %N, phytophagous nematodes, bacterivore nematodes, omnivorous nematodes, SI, collembolan richness, and endogeic earthworm biomass) are not displayed here; see Table S5.1.
FIGURE 3Box plots showing the effects of grazing treatment on forest soil properties. Significance levels inferred from linear models using only grazing treatment as a response variable are indicated above each figure (NS: not significant, ¤ p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001)
FIGURE 4NMDS plots of (a) vegetation, (b) nematode, (c) springtail, (d) oribatid, (e) mesostigmatid, and (f) earthworm communities. Circles indicate 95% confidence range of centroid position. Stress values and PERMANOVA statistics are indicated at the lower left corner of each plot
FIGURE 5Mean (± SE) biomass of epigeic, endogeic, and anecic earthworms per habitat type (NS p > .10; ¤p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001)