Response of Microbial Community Composition and Function to Soil Climate Change
- 1.9k Downloads
Soil microbial communities mediate critical ecosystem carbon and nutrient cycles. How microbial communities will respond to changes in vegetation and climate, however, are not well understood. We reciprocally transplanted soil cores from under oak canopies and adjacent open grasslands in a California oak–grassland ecosystem to determine how microbial communities respond to changes in the soil environment and the potential consequences for the cycling of carbon. Every 3 months for up to 2 years, we monitored microbial community composition using phospholipid fatty acid analysis (PLFA), microbial biomass, respiration rates, microbial enzyme activities, and the activity of microbial groups by quantifying 13C uptake from a universal substrate (pyruvate) into PLFA biomarkers. Soil in the open grassland experienced higher maximum temperatures and lower soil water content than soil under the oak canopies. Soil microbial communities in soil under oak canopies were more sensitive to environmental change than those in adjacent soil from the open grassland. Oak canopy soil communities changed rapidly when cores were transplanted into the open grassland soil environment, but grassland soil communities did not change when transplanted into the oak canopy environment. Similarly, microbial biomass, enzyme activities, and microbial respiration decreased when microbial communities were transplanted from the oak canopy soils to the grassland environment, but not when the grassland communities were transplanted to the oak canopy environment. These data support the hypothesis that microbial community composition and function is altered when microbes are exposed to new extremes in environmental conditions; that is, environmental conditions outside of their “life history” envelopes.
We want to thank the Hopland Research and Extension Center and Charles Vaughn for support of this project, and David Harris and the University of California at Davis isotope facility for the use of their instrumentation. This work was made possible by financial support from the Kearney Foundation for Soil Science Research and California AES project 6117-H.
- 2.Allen, MF, Morris, SJ, Edwards, F, Allen, EB (1995) Microbe–plant interactions in Mediterranean-type habitats: shifts in fungal symbiotic and saprophytic functioning in response to global change. In: Moreno JM, Oechel WC (Eds.) Global Change and Mediterranean-type Ecosystems, Ecological Studies, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 287–305Google Scholar
- 5.Bardgett, RD, Kandeler, E, Tscherko, D, Hobbs, PJ, Bezemer, TM, Jones, TH, Thompson, LJ (1999) Below-ground microbial community development in a high temperature world. Oikos 85: 193–203Google Scholar
- 11.Canals, RM, Herman, DJ, Firestone, MK (2003) How disturbance by fossorial mammals alters N cycling in a California annual grassland. Ecology 84: 875–881Google Scholar
- 13.Eviner, VT, Chapin, FS (2003) Gopher-plant-fungal interactions affect establishment of an invasive grass. Ecology 84: 120–128Google Scholar
- 16.Downie, DE, Taskey, RD (1997) Soil characteristics of blue oak and coast live oak ecosystems. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-160, pp 65–73Google Scholar
- 18.Gulledge, J, Schimel, JP (1998) Moisture control over atmospheric CH4 consumption and CO2 production in diverse Alaskan soils. Soil Biol Biochem 30: 1127–113Google Scholar
- 19.Herman, DJ, Halverson, LJ, Firestone, MK (2003) Nitrogen dynamics in an annual grassland: oak canopy, climate, and microbial population effects. Ecol Appl 13: 593–604Google Scholar
- 30.Waldrop, MP, Firestone, MK (in press) Seasonal dynamics of microbial community composition and function in oak canopy and grassland soils. Microb EcolGoogle Scholar
- 31.White, DC, Ringelberg, DB (1998) Signature lipid biomarker analysis. In: Burlage RS, Atlas R, Stahl D, Geesey G, Sayler G (Eds.) Techniques in Microbial Ecology, Oxford University Press, New York, pp 255–272Google Scholar