Skip to main content
Log in

Soil mineral fraction influences the bacterial abundance: evidence from a mineral and plant materials incubation study

  • Published:
Biogeochemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 17 October 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

Microbial products, largely the necromass, are key contributors to stable soil organic matter (SOM) in terrestrial systems, and microbial communities may differ in the stabilization. Plants can control microbial communities through litter quality and entry sites of plant inputs (above- or below-ground). However, whether soil mineral fractions (due to the characteristics such as soil texture) can also control the microbial communities, remains unclear. We conducted two model soil incubation experiments (E1 and E2) in order to simulate the four field soils. Materials included were plant materials, such as general plant inputs in soil systems, and four mineral materials derived from different field soils (i.e., “the four original field soils”), with their SOM removed by combustion. E1 was undertaken to simulate root exudate using oxalate and glucose, and E2 was undertaken to simulate plant litter using broad leaves, coniferous leaves, branches, and fine roots. The microbial (mainly bacterial) community structure from phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) across E1 and E2 showed differences due to the mineral materials, and the differences after accounting for plant materials are similar to the difference in the four original field soils. Additionally, the abundance of bacterial PLFAs in E2 increased with silt and clay content and was correlated with the abundance of the bacterial PLFAs in the four original field soil. This study implies that even in the case of this experiment under such conditions as a broad variety of plant inputs, mineral fractions strongly influence bacterial communities, in a manner consistent with field soil systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Additional data are presented as Supplementary information.

Change history

  • 11 October 2022

    The original version of this article was revised: In this article a symbol was missing in Figure 4 due to a conversion error. The original article has been updated.

  • 17 October 2022

    A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-022-00982-0

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Takahito Yoshioka and Shunsuke Matsuoka for helpful comments, and Soyoka Makino and Masataka Nakayama for assistance with laboratory work. Thanks to the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their helpful comments and suggestions regarding the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

TY: conceived the project; TY and NT: contributed to the fieldwork; TY: conducted the incubation experiments and analyzed the data; FH: contributed to PLFA analysis; TY: wrote the manuscript; all authors contributed to reviewing and editing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomohiro Yokobe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of competing interests to report.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Steven J. Hall.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: In this article a symbol was missing in Figure 4 due to a conversion error. The original article has been updated.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 557 KB)

Appendix

Appendix

See Fig. 6.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Relationships between PLFAs and quantitative PCR of fungi and bacteria, and between total PLFA and DNA content in E1 and E2. The two fungal indicators were significantly correlated in all the samples (P = 0.0062), and neither was significantly correlated in EM1 (P = 0.4464) nor in EM2 (P = 0.5723). The bacterial indicators were significantly correlated in all the samples (P < 0.0001), and significantly correlated both in EM1 (P = 0.0201) and in EM2 (P = 0.0002). The total PLFA content was not significantly correlated with the DNA content in all the samples (P = 0.3509), but significantly correlated in EM1 (P = 0.0120) and in EM2 (P = 0.0196). V volcanic mineral material; NV non-volcanic mineral material

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yokobe, T., Hyodo, F., Tateno, R. et al. Soil mineral fraction influences the bacterial abundance: evidence from a mineral and plant materials incubation study. Biogeochemistry 161, 273–287 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-022-00978-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-022-00978-w

Keywords

Navigation