Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 412, Issue 1–2, pp 357–368 | Cite as

Response of soil microbial community to afforestation with pure and mixed species

  • Anna Gunina
  • Andrew R. Smith
  • Douglas L. Godbold
  • Davey L. Jones
  • Yakov Kuzyakov
Regular Article

Abstract

Objectives

Afforestation changes soil chemical properties over several decades. In contrast, microbial community structure can be shifted within the first decade and so, the direct effects of tree species can be revealed. The aim of this study was to determine the alteration of soil microbial community composition 10 years after afforestation by trees with contrasting functional traits.

Methods

The study was conducted at the BangorDIVERSE temperate forest experiment. Soil samples were collected under single, two and three species mixtures of alder and birch, beech and oak - early and secondary successional species, respectively, and contiguous agricultural field. Soil was analysed for total carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) contents, and microbial community structure (phospholipid fatty acids (PLFAs) analysis).

Results and conclusions

The total PLFAs content (370–640 nmol g−1 soil) in forest plots increased for 30 to 110 % compared to the agricultural soil (290 nmol g−1 soil). In contrast, soil C, N and C/N ratios were altered over 10 years much less - increased only up to 20 % or even decreased (for beech forest).

Afforestation increased bacterial PLFAs by 20–120 %, whereas it had stronger impact on the development of fungal communities (increased by 50–200 %). These effects were proved for all forests, but were more pronounced under the monocultures compared to mixtures. This indicates that species identity has a stronger effect than species diversity. Principal component analysis of PLFAs revealed that under mono and three species mixtures similar microbial communities were formed. In contrast, gram-positive PLFAs and actinomycete PLFAs contributed mainly to differentiation of two species mixtures from other forests. Thus, at the early afforestation stage: i) soil biological properties are altered more than chemical, and ii) tree species identity affects more than species amount on both processes.

Keywords

Woodland Plant microbial interactions Microbial biomarkers Land use change Forest composition Ammonium and nitrate Soil solution Tree identity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant from the Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctoral Programme “Forest and Nature for Society” (FONASO) awarded to A. Gunina. BangorDIVERSE was supported by the Sêr Cymru National Research Network for Low Carbon Energy and Environment. Financial support for this work was provided by the German Research Foundation (DFG) within the project B5 of the Graduiertenkolleg 1086 and within the DFG project KU 1184/35-1.

Supplementary material

11104_2016_3073_MOESM1_ESM.doc (68 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 (DOC 68 kb)
11104_2016_3073_MOESM2_ESM.doc (41 kb)
Supplementary Table 2 (DOC 41 kb)

References

  1. Ahmed IU, Smith AR, Jones DL, Godbold DL (2016) Tree species identity influences the vertical distribution of labile and recalcitrant carbon in a temperate deciduous forest soil. Special section: forests, roots and soil carbon. For Ecol Manag 359:352–360. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.07.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apostel C, Dippold MA, Glaser B, Kuzyakov Y (2013) Biochemical pathways of amino acids in soil. Assessment by position-specific labeling and 13C–PLFA analysis. Soil Biol Biochem 67:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum C, Toljander YK, Eckhardt K-U, Weih M (2009) The significance of host-fungus combinations in ectomycorrhizal symbioses for the chemical quality of willow foliage. Plant Soil 323:213–224. doi: 10.1007/s11104-009-9928-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berthrong ST, Jobbaagy EG, Jackson RB (2009) A global meta-analysis of soil exchangeable cations, pH, carbon,and nitrogen with afforestation. Ecol Appl 19:2228–2241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Boer WD, Folman LB, Summerbell RC, Boddy L (2005) Living in a fungal world: impact of fungi on soil bacterial niche development. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29:795–811. doi: 10.1016/j.femsre.2004.11.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckley DH, Schmidt TM (2003) Diversity and dynamics of microbial communities in soils from agroecosystems. Environ Microbiol 5:441–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Carson JK, Gleeson DB, Clipson N, Murphy DV (2010) Afforestation alters community structure of soil fungi. Fungal Biol 114:580–584. doi: 10.1016/j.funbio.2010.04.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapin FS, Walker LR, Fastie CL, Sharman LC (1994) Mechanisms of primary succession following Deglaciation at Glacier Bay, Alaska. Ecol Monogr 64:149–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cong J, Yang Y, Liu X, Lu H, Liu X, Zhou J, Li D, Yin H, Ding J, Zhang Y (2015) Analyses of soil microbial community compositions and functional genes reveal potential consequences of natural forest succession. Sci Report 5:10007. doi: 10.1038/srep10007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeLuca TH, Boisvenue C (2012) Boreal forest soil carbon: distribution,function and modelling. Forestry. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cps003 Google Scholar
  11. European Environment Agency (EEA) reports (2015)Google Scholar
  12. Frostegard A, Tunlid A, Baath E (1991) Microbial biomass measured as total lipid phosphate in soils of different organic content. J Microbiol Methods 14:151–163. doi: 10.1016/0167-7012(91)90018-l CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frouz J, Voborilová V, Janoušová I, Kadochová Š, Matejícek L (2015) Spontaneous establishment of late successional tree species Englishoak (Quercus robur) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica) at reclaimed alder plantation and unreclaimed post mining sites. Ecol Eng 77:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fu X, Yang F, Wang J, Di Y, Dai X, Zhang XHW (2015) Understory vegetation leads to changes in soil acidity and in microbial communities 27 years after reforestation. Sci Total Environ 502:280–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Glanville H, Rousk J, Golyshin P, Jones DL (2012) Mineralization of low molecular weight carbon substrates in soil solution under laboratory and field conditions. Soil Biol Biochem 48:88–95. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.01.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grayston SJ, Vaughan D, Jones D (1997a) Rhizosphere carbon flow in trees, in comparison with annual plants. The importance of root exudation and its impact on microbial activity and nutrient availability. Appl Soil Ecol 5:29–56. doi: 10.1016/s0929-1393(96)00126-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grayston SJ, Vaughan D, Jones D (1997b) Rhizosphere carbon flow in trees, in comparison with annual plants. The importance of root exudation and its impact on microbial activity and nutrient availability. Appl Soil Ecol 5:29–56. doi: 10.1016/s0929-1393(96)00126-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gunina A, Dippold M, Glaser B, Kuzyakov Y (2014) Fate of low molecular weight organic substances in an arable soil. From microbial uptake to utilisation and stabilisation. Soil Biol Biochem 77:304–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hackl E, Pfeffer M, Donat C, Bachmann G, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S (2005) Composition of the microbial communities in the mineral soil under different types of natural forest. Soil Biol Biochem 37:661–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Helgason BL, Walley FL, Germida JJ (2009) Fungal and bacterial abundance inlong-term no-till and intensive-till soils of the northern Great Plains. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jangid K, Williams MA, Franzluebbers AJ, Schmidt TM, Coleman DC, Whitman WB (2011) Land-use history has a stronger impact on soil microbial communitycomposition than aboveground vegetation and soil properties. Soil Biol Biochem xxx:1–10Google Scholar
  22. Jobbágy EG, Jackson RB (2003) Patterns and mechanisms of soil acidification in the conversion of grasslands to forests. Biogeochemistry 64:205–229. doi: 10.1023/A:1024985629259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kalinina O, Krause SE, Goryachkin SV, Karavaeva NA, Lyuri DI, Giani L (2011) Self restoration of post-agrogenic chernozems of Russia: soil development, carbon stocks, and dynamics of carbon pools. Geoderma 162:196–206Google Scholar
  24. Klein DA, McLendon T, Paschke MW, Redente EE (1995) Saprophytic fungal-bacterial biomass variations in successional communities of a semi-arid steppe ecosystem. Biol Fertil Soils 19:253–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kurganova I, Lopes De Gerenyu V, Kuzyakov Y (2015) Large-scale carbon sequestration in post-agrogenic ecosystems in Russia and Kazakhstan. Catena 133:461–466. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2015.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laganière J, Paré D, Bergeron Y, Chen H (2012) The effect of boreal forest composition on soil respiration is mediated throughvariations in soil temperature and C quality. Soil Biol Biochem 53:18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leckie SE (2005) Methods of microbial community profiling and their application to forest soils. For Ecol Manag 220:88–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewandowski TE, Forrester JA, Mladenoff DJ, Stoffel JL, Gower ST, D’Amato AW, Balser TC (2015) Soil microbial community response and recovery following group selection harvest. Temporal patterns from an experimental harvest in a US northern hardwood forest. For Ecol Manag 340:82–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Li H, Ye D, Wang X, Settles ML, Wang J, Hao Z, Zhou L, Dong P, Jiang Y, Ma Z (2014a) Soil bacterial communities of different natural forest types in Northeast China. Plant Soil 383:203–216. doi: 10.1007/s11104-014-2165-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li M, Zhou X, ZHANG Q, Cheng X (2014b) Consequences of afforestation for soil nitrogen dynamics in Central China. Agric Ecosyst Environ 183:40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Macdonald CA, Thomas N, Robinson L, Tate KR, Ross DJ, Dando J, Singh BK (2009) Physiological, biochemical and molecular responses of the soil microbial community after afforestation of pastures withPinus radiata. Soil Biol Biochem 41:1642–1651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Madan R, Pankhurst C, Hawke B, Smith S (2002) Use of fatty acids for identification of AM fungi and estimation of the biomass of AM spores in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 34:125–128. doi: 10.1016/s0038-0717(01)00151-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mann L, Tolbert V (2000) Soil sustainability in renewable biomass plantings. Ambio 29:492–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mulvaney RL (1996) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3 – Chemical Methods. Nitrogen – Inorganic Forms. Soil Science Society of America, Inc., WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  35. Nazaries L, Tottey W, Robinson L, Khachane A, Al-Soudd WA, Sørensen S, Singh BK (2015) Shifts in the microbial community structure explain the response of soil respiration to land-use change but not to climate warming. Soil Biol Biochem 89:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nichols P, Stulp BK, Jones JG, White DC (1986) Comparison of fatty acid contentand DNA homology of the filamentous gliding bacteria Vitreoscilla, Flexibacter,Filibacter. Arch Microbiol 146:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Novara A, La Mantia T, Rühl J, Badalucco L, Kuzyakov Y, Gristina L, Laudicina VA (2014) Dynamics of soil organic carbon pools after agricultural abandonment. Geoderma 235–236:191–198Google Scholar
  38. Paul KI, Polglase PJ, Nyakuengama JG, Khanna PK (2002) Change in soil carbon following afforestation. For Ecol Manag 168:241–257. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00740-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Priha O, Grayston SJ, Pennanen T, Smolander A (1999) Microbial activities related to C and N cycling and microbial community structure in the rhizospheres ofPinus sylvestris, Picea Abiesandbetula pendulaseedlings in an organic and mineral soil. Fems microbiology. Ecology 30:187–199Google Scholar
  40. Ritter E, Vesterdal L, Gundersen P (2003) Changes in soil properties after afforestation of former intensively managed soils with oak and Norway spruce. Plant Soil 249:319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rousk J, Baath E (2007) Fungal biomass production and turnover in soil estimated using the acetate-in-ergosterol technique. Soil Biol Biochem 39:2173–2177. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.03.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scheibe A, Steffens C, Seven J, Jacob A, Hertel D, Leuschner C, Gleixner G (2015) Effects of tree identity dominate over tree diversity on the soil microbial community structure. Soil Biol Biochem 81:219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith A, Lukac M, Hood R, Healey JR, Miglietta F, Godbold DL (2013) Elevated CO2 enrichment induces a differential biomass response in a mixed species temperate forest plantation. New Phytol 198:156–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Sommer J, Dippold MA, Flessa H, Kuzyakov Y (2016) Allocation and dynamics of C and N within plant-soil system of ash and beech. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 179(3):376–387Google Scholar
  45. Strickland MS, Rousk J (2010) Considering fungal. bacterial dominance in soils - Methods, controls, and ecosystem implications. Soil Biol Biochem 42:1385–1395. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM (1979) Decomposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Thoms C, Gleixner G (2013) Seasonal differences in tree species’ influence on soil microbial communities. Soil Biol Biochem 66:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trap J, Hättenschwiler S, Gattin I, Aubert M (2013) Forest ageing: an unexpected driver of beech leaf litter quality variability in European forests with strong consequences on soil processes. For Ecol Manag 302:338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Uri V, Lohmus K, Tullus H (2003) Annual net nitrogen mineralization in a grey alder (Alnus Incana(L.) moench) plantation on abandoned agricultural land. For Ecol Manag 184:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van der Wal A, van Veen JA, Smant W, Boschker H, Bloem J, Kardol P, van der Putten WH, Boer W de (2006) Fungal biomass development in a chronosequence of land abandonment. Soil Biol Biochem 38:51–60.Google Scholar
  51. Walker LR, Chapin FS (1986) Physiological controls over seedling growth in primary succession on an Alaskan flood plain. Ecology 67:1508–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. World reference base (WRB) for soil resources (2006) World Soil Resources Reports No. 103. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
  53. Yannikos N, Leinweber P, Helgason BL, Baum C, Walley FL, van Rees K (2014) Impact of Populus trees on the composition of organic matter and the soil microbial community in Orthic Gray Luvisols in Saskatchewan (Canada). Soil Biol Biochem 70:5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zeller V, Bardgett RD, Tappeiner U (2001) Site and management effects on soil microbial properties of subalpine meadows: a study of land abandonment along a north–south gradient in the European alps. Soil Biol Biochem 33:639–649. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00208-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zelles L (1997) Phospholipid fatty acid profiles in selected members of soil microbial communities. Chemosphere 35:275–294. doi: 10.1016/s0045-6535(97)00155-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Gunina
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrew R. Smith
    • 1
  • Douglas L. Godbold
    • 3
  • Davey L. Jones
    • 1
  • Yakov Kuzyakov
    • 2
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Environment, Natural Resources and GeographyBangor UniversityBangorUK
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural Soil ScienceGeorg August University of GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  3. 3.Institute for Forest EcologyUniversität für Bodenkultur, BOKUViennaAustria
  4. 4.Department of Soil Science of Temperate EcosystemsGeorg August University of GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  5. 5.Institute of Environmental SciencesKazan Federal UniversityKazanRussia

Personalised recommendations