Microbial Ecology

, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 424–430 | Cite as

Soil Water Content and Organic Carbon Availability Are Major Determinants of Soil Microbial Community Composition

  • R.E. Drenovsky
  • D. Vo
  • K.J. Graham
  • K.M. Scow


Exploration of environmental factors governing soil microbial community composition is long overdue and now possible with improved methods for characterizing microbial communities. Previously, we observed that rice soil microbial communities were distinctly different from tomato soil microbial communities, despite management and seasonal variations within soil type. Potential contributing factors included types and amounts of organic inputs, organic carbon content, and timing and amounts of water inputs. Of these, both soil water content and organic carbon availability were highly correlated with observed differences in composition. We examined how organic carbon amendment (compost, vetch, or no amendment) and water additions (from air dry to flooded) affect microbial community composition. Using canonical correspondence analysis of phospholipid fatty acid data, we determined flooded, carbon-amended (+C) microcosm samples were distinctly different from other +C samples and unamended (–C) samples. Although flooding without organic carbon addition influenced composition some, organic carbon addition was necessary to substantially alter community composition. Organic carbon availability had the same general effects on microbial communities regardless of whether it was compost or vetch in origin. In addition, flooded samples, regardless of organic carbon inputs, had significantly lower ratios of fungal to bacterial biomarkers, whereas under drier conditions and increased organic carbon availability the microbial communities had higher proportions of fungal biomass. When comparing field and microcosm soil, flooded +C microcosm samples were most similar to field-collected rice soil, whereas all other treatments were more similar to field-collected tomato soil. Overall, manipulating water and carbon content selected for microbial communities similar to those observed when the same factors were manipulated at the field scale.


Microbial Community Soil Water Content Soil Microbial Community Canonical Correspondence Analysis Microbial Community Composition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors thank the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Center for Ecological Health Research at U.C. Davis, the NIEHS Superfund Basic Research Program (2P42 ESO4699), and a grant from the Kearney Foundation of Soil Science. The comments of K.M. Batten, K.A. Hicks, and three anonymous reviewers significantly improved the manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Alden, L, Demoling, F, Bååth, E 2001Rapid method of determining factors limiting bacterial growth in soil.Appl Environ Microbiol6718301838Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bååth, E, Anderson, TH 2003Comparison of soil fungal/bacterial ratios in a pH gradient using physiological and PLFA-based techniques.Soil Biol Biochem35955963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bedford, BL, Walbridge, MR, Aldous, A 1999Patterns in nutrient availability and plant diversity of temperate North American wetlands.Ecology8021512169Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bligh, EG, Dyer, WM 1959A rapid method of lipid extraction and purification.Can J Biochem Phys39911917Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bossio, DA, Scow, KM 1998Impacts of carbon and flooding on soil microbial communities: phospholipids fatty acid profiles and substrate utilization patterns.Microb Ecol35265278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bossio, DA, Scow, KM, Gunapala, N, Graham, KJ 1998Determinants of soil microbial communities: effects of agricultural management, season, and soil type on phospholipids fatty acid profiles.Microb Ecol36112Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broughton, LC, Gross, KL 2000Patterns of diversity in plant and soil microbial communities along a productivity gradient in a Michigan old-field.Oecologia125420427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buyer, JS, Drinkwater, LE 1997Comparison of substrate utilization assay and fatty acid analysis of soil microbial communities.J Microbiol Methods30311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calderon, FJ, Jackson, LE, Scow, KM, Rolston, DE 2001Short-term dynamics of nitrogen, microbial activity, and phospholipid fatty acids after tillage.Soil Sci Soc Am J65118126Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dunbar, J, Barns, SM, Ticknor, LO, Kuske, CR 2002Empirical and theoretical bacterial diversity in four Arizona soils.Appl Environ Microbiol6830353045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gunapala, N, Scow, KM 1998Dynamics of soil microbial biomass and activity in conventional and organic farming systems.Soil Biol Biochem30805816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hanson, J, Macalady, JL, Harris, D, Scow, KM 1999Linking toluene degradation with specific microbial populations in soil.Appl Environ Microbiol6554035408PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hedrick, DB, Peacock, A, Stephen, JR, Macnaughton, SJ, Bruggemann, J, White, DC 2000Measuring soil microbial community diversity using polar lipid fatty acid and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis data.J Microb Methods41235248Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hill, GT, Mitkowski, NA, Aldrich-Wolfe, L, Emele, LR, Jurkonie, DD, Ficke, A, Maldonado-Ramirez, S, Lynch, ST, Nelson, EB 2000Methods for assessing the composition and diversity of soil microbial communities.Appl Soil Ecol152536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keith-Roach, MJ, Bryan, ND, Bardgett, RD, Livens, FR 2002Seasonal changes in the microbial community of a salt marsh, measured by phospholipid fatty acid analysis.Biogeochemistry607796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laakso, J, Setälä, H, Palojärvi, A 2000Influence of decomposer food web structure and nitrogen availability on plant growth.Plant Soil225153165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lindstrom, ES 2000Bacterioplankton community composition in five lakes differing in trophic status and humic content.Microb Ecol40104113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lundquist, EJ, Scow, KM, Jackson, LE, Uesugi, SL, Johnson, CR 1999Rapid response of soil microbial communities from conventional, low input, and organic farming systems to a wet/dry cycle.Soil Biol Biochem3116611675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Macalady, JL, Mack, EE, Nelson, DC, Scow, KM 2000Sediment microbial community structure and mercury methylation in mercury-polluted Clear Lake, California.Appl Env Microbiol6614791488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nilsson, C, Andersson, E, Merritt, DM, Johansson, ME 2002Differences in riparian flora between riverbanks and river lakeshores explained by dispersal traits.Ecology8328782887Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pankhurst, CE, Yu, S, Hawke, BG, Harch, BD 2001Capacity of fatty acid profiles and substrate utilization patterns to describe differences in soil microbial communities associated with increased salinity or alkalinity at three locations in South Australia.Biol Fertil Soils33204217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peacock, AD, Mullen, MD, Ringelberg, DB, Tyler, DD, Hedrick, DB, Gale, PM, White, DC 2001Soil microbial community responses to dairy manure or ammonium nitrate applications.Soil Biol Biochem3310111019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pinkart, HC, Ringelberg, DB, Piceno, YM, Macnaughton, SJ, White, DC 2002Biochemical approaches to biomass measurements and community structure analysis.Hurst, CJCrawford, RLKnudsen, GRMcInerney, MJStetzenbach, LD eds. Manual of Environmental Microbiology, 2nd ed.ASM PressWashington, DC101113Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Powell, SM, Bowman, JP, Snape, I, Stark, JS 2003Microbial community variation in pristine and polluted nearshore Antarctic sediments.FEMS Microbiol Ecol45135145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reichardt, W, Mascariña, G, Padre, B, Doll, J 1997Microbial communities of continuously cropped, irrigated rice fields.Appl Environ Microb63233238Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    SAS Institute2001SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Versions 8SAS InstituteCary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schadt, CW, Martin, AP, Lipson, DA, Schmidt, SK 2003Seasonal dynamics of previously unknown fungal lineages in tundra soils.Science30113591361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schimel, J 1995Ecosystem consequences of microbial diversity and community structure.Chapin, FSKörner, C eds. Arctic and Alpine Diversity: Patterns, Causes, and Ecosystem ConsequencesSpringer-VerlagBerlin239254Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schmidt, IK, Ruess, L, Bååth, E, Michelson, A, Ekelund, F, Jonasson, S 2000Long-term manipulation of the microbes and microfauna of two subartic heaths by addition of fungicide, bactericide, carbon, and fertilizer.Soil Biol Biochem32707720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scow, KM, Somasco, O, Gunapala, N, Lau, S, Venette, R, Ferris, H, Miller, R, Shennan, C 1994Changes in soil fertility and biology during the transition from conventional to low-input and organic cropping systems.Cal Agr482026Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith, MD, Knapp, AK 2001Size of the local species pool determines invasibility of a C4-dominated grassland.Oikos925561Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Steenwerth, KL, Jackson, LE, Calderon, FJ, Stromberg, MR, Scow, KM 2002Soil microbial community composition and land use history in cultivated and grassland ecosystems of coastal California.Soil Biol Biochem3415991611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sylvia, DM, Fuhrmann, JJ, Hartel, PG, Zuberer, DA 1999Principles and Applications of Soil MicrobiologyPrentice HallUpper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Temple, SR, Friedman, DB, Somasco, O, Ferris, H, Scow, KM, Klonsy, K 1994An interdisciplinary, experiment station-based participatory comparison of alternative crop management systems for California’s Sacramento Valley.Am J Alternative Agr96471Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    ter Braak, CJF 1986Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis.Ecology6711671179Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    ter Braak, CJF, Šmilauer, P 1998CANOCO Reference Manual and Users Guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination. Version 4Microcomputer PowerIthaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Theodose, TA, Bowman, WD 1997The influence of interspecific competition on the distribution of an Alpine graminoid: evidence for the importance of plant competition in an extreme environment.Oikos79101114Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Torsvik, V, Goksøyr, J, Daae, FL 1990High diversity in DNA of soil bacteria.Appl Environ Microbiol56782787Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Torsvik, V, Øvreås, L 2002Microbial diversity and function in soil: from genes to ecosystems.Curr Opin Microbiol5240245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Waldrop, MP, Balser, TC, Firestone, MK 2000Linking microbial composition to function in a tropical soil.Soil Biol Biochem3218371846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yao, H, He, Z, Wilson, MJ, Campbell, CD 2000Microbial biomass and community structure in a sequence of soils with increasing fertility and changing land use.Microb Ecol40223237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Young, TP, Peacock, MM 1992Giant Senecios and alpine vegetation of Mount Kenya.J Ecol80141148Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Land, Air and Water ResourcesUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations