, Volume 138, Issue 2, pp 275–284 | Cite as

Microbial community utilization of recalcitrant and simple carbon compounds: impact of oak-woodland plant communities

Ecosystem Ecology


Little is known about how the structure of microbial communities impacts carbon cycling or how soil microbial community composition mediates plant effects on C-decomposition processes. We examined the degradation of four 13C-labeled compounds (starch, xylose, vanillin, and pine litter), quantified rates of associated enzyme activities, and identified microbial groups utilizing the 13C-labeled substrates in soils under oaks and in adjacent open grasslands. By quantifying increases in non-13C-labeled carbon in microbial biomarkers, we were also able to identify functional groups responsible for the metabolism of indigenous soil organic matter. Although microbial community composition differed between oak and grassland soils, the microbial groups responsible for starch, xylose, and vanillin degradation, as defined by 13C-PLFA, did not differ significantly between oak and grassland soils. Microbial groups responsible for pine litter and SOM-C degradation did differ between the two soils. Enhanced degradation of SOM resulting from substrate addition (priming) was greater in grassland soils, particularly in response to pine litter addition; under these conditions, fungal and Gram + biomarkers showed more incorporation of SOM-C than did Gram – biomarkers. In contrast, the oak soil microbial community primarily incorporated C from the added substrates. More 13C (from both simple and recalcitrant sources) was incorporated into the Gram – biomarkers than Gram + biomarkers despite the fact that the Gram + group generally comprised a greater portion of the bacterial biomass than did markers for the Gram – group. These experiments begin to identify components of the soil microbial community responsible for decomposition of different types of C-substrates. The results demonstrate that the presence of distinctly different plant communities did not alter the microbial community profile responsible for decomposition of relatively labile C-substrates but did alter the profiles of microbial communities responsible for decomposition of the more recalcitrant substrates, pine litter and indigenous soil organic matter.


Microbial community composition 13C-phospholipid fatty acid analysis Soil carbon cycling Enzyme activities 


  1. Abraham WR, Hesse C, Pelz O (1998) Ratios of carbon isotopes in microbial lipids as an indicator of substrate usage. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:4202–4209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Balser TC, Kinzig AP, Firestone MK (2002) Linking Soil microbial communities and ecosystem functioning. In: Kinzig A, Pacala S, Tilman D (eds) The functional consequences of biodiversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 265–293Google Scholar
  3. Bossio DA, Scow KM (1995) Impact of carbon and flooding on the metabolic diversity of microbial communities in soils. Appl Environ Microbiol 61:4043–4050Google Scholar
  4. Cheng W (1999) Rhizosphere feedbacks in elevated CO2. Tree Physiol 19:313–320PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dahlgren RA, Singer MJ, Huang X (1997) Oak tree and grazing impacts on soil properties and nutrients in a California oak woodland. Biogeochemistry (Dordrecht) 39:45–64Google Scholar
  6. Deschaseaux A, Ponge JF (2001) Changes in the composition of humus profiles near the trunk base of an oak tree [ Quercus petraea (Mattus.) Liebl.]. Eur J Soil Biol 37:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eviner V (2001) Linking plant community composition and ecosystem dynamics: interactions of plant traits determine the ecosystem effects of plant species and plant species mixtures. PhD dissertation, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Finlay BJ, Maberly SC, Cooper JI (1997) Microbial diversity and ecosystem function. Oikos. 80:209–213Google Scholar
  9. Frostegård A, Bååth E (1996) The use of phospholipid fatty acid analysis to estimate bacterial and fungal biomass in soil. Biol Fertil Soils 22:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guggenberger G, Elliott ET, Frey SD, Six J, Paustian K (1999) Microbial contributions to the aggregation of a cultivated grassland soil amended with starch. Soil Biol Biochem 31:407–419Google Scholar
  11. Harrison AF (1971) The inhibitory effect of oak leaf litter tannins on the growth of fungi, in relation to litter decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem 3:167–172Google Scholar
  12. Herman DJ, Halverson LJ, Firestone MK (2003) Nitrogen dynamics in a Mediterranean annual grassland: effects of oak canopies and tree removal, climatic variables, and microbial populations. Ecol Appl (in press)Google Scholar
  13. Houston APC, Visser S, Lautenschlager RA (1998) Response of microbial processes and fungal community structure to vegetation management in mixed-wood forest soils. Can J Bot 76:2002–2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jackson LE, Strauss RB, Firestone MK, Bartolome JW (1990) Influence of tree canopies on grassland productivity and nitrogen dynamics in deciduous oak savanna. Agric Ecosyst Environ 32:89–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuske CR, Ticknor LO, Miller ME, Dunbar JM, Davis JA, Barns SM, Belnap J (2002) Comparison of soil bacterial communities in rhizospheres of three plant species and the interspaces in an arid grassland. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:1854–1863Google Scholar
  16. Kuzyakov Y, Friedel JK, Stahr K (2000) Review of mechanisms and quantification of priming effects. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1485–1498Google Scholar
  17. Lopez Llorca LV, Olivares Bernabeu C (1997) Growth inhibition of nematophagous and entomopathogenic fungi by leaf litter and soil containing phenols. Mycol Res 101:691–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Madigan MT, Martinko JM, Parker J (2003) Brock biology of microorganisms. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  19. Myers RT, Zak DR, White DC, Peacock A (2001) Landscape-level patterns of microbial community composition and substrate in upland forest ecosystems. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:359–367Google Scholar
  20. Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (eds) (1982) Methods of soil analysis, Part 2. ASA, Madison, Wis.Google Scholar
  21. Phillips RL, Zak DR, Holmes WE, White DC (2002) Microbial community composition and function beneath temperate trees exposed to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide and ozone. Oecologia 131:236–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schimel JP, Gulledge J (1998) Microbial community structure and global trace gases. Global Change Biol 4:745–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stark JM, Firestone MK (1996) Kinetic characteristics of ammonium-oxidizer communities in a California oak woodland-annual grassland. Soil Biol Biochem 28:1307–1317Google Scholar
  24. Wall DH, Moore JC (1999) Interactions underground: soil biodiversity, mutualism, and ecosystem processes. Bioscience 49:109–117Google Scholar
  25. Westover KM, Kennedy AC, Kelley SE (1997) Patterns of rhizosphere microbial community structure associated with co-occurring plant species. J Ecol 85:863–873Google Scholar
  26. White DC, Ringelberg DB (1998) Signature lipid biomarker analysis. In: Burlage RS, Atlas R, Stahl D, Geesey G, Sayler G (ed) Techniques in microbial ecology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 255–272Google Scholar
  27. Zogg GP, Zak DR, Ringelberg DB, MacDonald NW, Pregitzer KS, White DC (1997) Compositional and functional shifts in microbial communities due to soil warming. Soil Sci Soc Am J 61:475–481Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science, Policy and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations