Oecologia

, Volume 143, Issue 2, pp 232–240 | Cite as

Soil microbial diversity and soil functioning affect competition among grasses in experimental microcosms

Plant Animal Interactions

Abstract

A gradient of microbial diversity in soil was established by inoculating pasteurized soil with microbial populations of different complexity, which were obtained by a combination of soil fumigation and filtering techniques. Four different soil diversity treatments were planted with six different grass species either in monoculture or in polyculture to test how changes of general microbial functions, such as catabolic diversity and nutrient recycling efficiency would affect the performance of the plant communities. Relatively harsh soil treatments were necessary to elicit visible effects on major soil processes such as decomposition and nitrogen cycling due to the high redundancy and resilience of soil microbial communities. The strongest effects of soil diversity manipulations on plant growth occurred in polycultures where interspecific competition between plants was high. In polycultures, soil diversity reduction led to a gradual, linear decline in biomass production of one subordinate grass species (Bromus hordeaceus), which was compensated by increased growth of two intermediate competitors (Aegilops geniculata, B. madritensis). This negative covariance in growth of competing grass species smoothed the effects of soil diversity manipulations at the plant community level. As a result, total shoot biomass production remained constant. Apparently the effects of soil diversity manipulations were buffered because functional redundancy at both, the microbial and the plant community level complemented each other. The results further suggests that small trade-offs in plant fitness due to general functional shifts at the microbial level can be significant for the outcome of competition in plant communities and thus diversity at much larger scales.

Keywords

Microbial level Plant community level Phytometer Stability Redundancy 

References

  1. Alphei J, Scheu S (1993) Effects of biocidal treatments on biological and nutritional properties of a mull-structured woodland soil. Geoderma 56:435–448Google Scholar
  2. Anderson JPE, Domsch KH (1978) A physiological method for the quantitative measurement of microbial biomass in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 10:215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck T, Joergensen RG, Kandeler E, Makeschin F, Nuss E, Oberholzer HR, Scheu S (1997) An inter-laboratory comparison of ten different ways of measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol Biochem 29:1023–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonkowski M, Scheu S (2004) Biotic interactions in the rhizosphere: effects on plant growth and herbivore development. In: Weisser W, Sieman E (eds) Insects and ecosystem functioning. Ecological studies,vol 173. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 71–91Google Scholar
  5. Bonkowski M, Griffiths BS, Scrimgeour C (2000) Substrate heterogeneity and microfauna in soil organic ‘hotspots’ as determinants of nitrogen capture and growth of rye-grass. Appl Soil Ecol 14:37–53Google Scholar
  6. Bradford MA, Jones TH, Bardgett RD, Black H, Boag B, Bonkowski M, Cook R, Eggers T, Gange AC, Grayston SJ, Kandeler E, McCaig AE, Newington JE, Prosser J, Setälä H, Staddon PL, Tordoff GM, Tscherko D, Lawton JH (2002) Impacts of soil faunal community composition on model grassland ecosystems. Science 298:615–618CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapin FS III, Zavaleta ES, Eviner VT, Naylor RL, Vitousek PM, Reynolds HL, Hooper DU, Lavorel S, Sala OE, Hobbie SE, Mack MC, Diaz S (2000) Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Degens B P (1998) Decreases in microbial functional diversity do not result in corresponding changes in decomposition under different moisture conditions. Soil Biol Biochem 30:1989–2000Google Scholar
  9. Gaines SD, Rice WR (1990) Analysis of biological data when there are ordered expectations. Am Nat 135:310–317Google Scholar
  10. Garland JL, Mills AL (1991) Classification and characterization of heterotrophic microbial communities on the basis of patterns of community-level sole-carbon-source utilization. Appl Environ Microbiol 57:2351–2359Google Scholar
  11. Giller PS (1996) The diversity of soil communities the ‘poor man’s tropical rain forest’. Biodivers Conserv 5:135–168Google Scholar
  12. Griffiths BS, Ritz K, Bardgett RD, Cook R, Christensen S, Ekelund F, Sørensen SJ, Bååth E, Bloem J, de Ruiter PC, Dolfing J, Nicolardot B (2000) Ecosystem response of pasture soil communities to fumigation-induced microbial diversity reductions: an examination of the biodiversity–ecosystem function relationship. Oikos 90:279–294Google Scholar
  13. Griffiths BS, Bonkowski M, Roy J, Ritz K (2001) Functional stability substrate utilisation and biological indicators of soils following environmental impacts. Appl Soil Ecol 16:49–61Google Scholar
  14. Hawksworth DL (1991) The fungal dimension of diversity: magnitude significance and conservation. Mycol Res 95:641–655Google Scholar
  15. van der Heijden MGA, Klironomos JN, Ursic M, Moutoglis P, Streitwolf-Engel R, Boller T, Wiemken A, Sanders IR (1998) Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant diversity ecosystem variability and productivity. Nature 396:69–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heil M, Baldwin IT (2002) Fitness costs of induced resistance: emerging experimental support for a slippery concept. Trends Plant Sci 7:61–67Google Scholar
  17. Huston MA (1997) Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia 110:449–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klironomos JN (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417:67–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Loreau M (2001) Microbial diversity producer–decomposer interactions and ecosystem processes: a theoretical model. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:303–309Google Scholar
  20. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime JP, Hector A, Hooper DU, Huston MA, Raffaelli D, Schmid B, Tilman D, Wardle DA (2001) Ecology—biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294:804–808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P (2002) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning—synthesis and perspectives. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Macfadyen A (1970) Simple methods for measuring and maintaining the proportion of carbon dioxide in air for use in ecological studies on soil respiration. Soil Biol Biochem 2:9–18Google Scholar
  23. McGrady-Steed J, Harris PM, Morin PJ (1997) Diversity regulates ecosystem predictability. Nature 390:162–165Google Scholar
  24. Naeem S, Li S (1997) Diversity enhances ecosystem reliability. Nature 390:507–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Naeem S, Hahn DR, Schuurman G (2000) Producer–decomposer co-dependency influences biodiversity effects. Nature 403:762–764Google Scholar
  26. Navas ML, Sonie L, Roy J (1997) The influence of elevated CO2 on species phenology growth and reproduction in a Mediterranean old-field community. Global Change Biol 3:523–530Google Scholar
  27. Page FC (1976) An illustrated key to freshwater and soil amoebae. Freshwater Biological Association, AmblesideGoogle Scholar
  28. Paul EA, Clark FE (1989) Soil microbiology and biochemistry. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  29. Scheu S (1992) Automated measurement of the respiratory response of soil microcompartments—active microbial biomass in earthworm faeces. Soil Biol Biochem 24:1113–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schmid B, Hector A, Huston M, Inchausti P, Nijs I, Leadley P, Tilman D (2002) The design and analysis of biodiversity experiments. In: Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning—Synthesis and perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 61–75Google Scholar
  31. Singh JS, Raghubanshi AS, Singh RS, Srivastava SC (1989) Microbial biomass acts as a source of plant nutrients in dry tropical forest and savanna. Nature 338:499–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stephan A, Meyer AH, Schmid B (2000) Plant diversity positively affects soil bacterial diversity in experimental grassland ecosystems. J Ecol 88:988–998Google Scholar
  33. Tilman D (1990) Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients: the elements of a predictive theory of competition. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 117–141Google Scholar
  34. Tilman D, Downing DA (1994) Diversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367:363–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Torsvik V, Goksøyr J, Daae FL (1990) High diversity in DNA of soil bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 56:782–787Google Scholar
  36. Toyota K, Ritz K, Kuninaga S, Kimura M (1999) Impact of fumigation with metam sodium upon soil microbial community structure in two Japanese soils. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 45:207–223Google Scholar
  37. Wardle DA (1999) Is ‘sampling effect’ a problem for experiments investigating biodiversity–ecosystem function relationships? Oikos 87:403–407Google Scholar
  38. Wardle DA, Bardgett RD, Klironomos JN, Setälä H, van der Putten WH, Wall DH (2004) Ecological linkages between aboveground and belowground biota. Science 304:1629–1633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Watkinson AR (1998) The role of the soil community in plant population dynamics. Trends Ecol Evol 13:171–172Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et EvolutiveCNRSMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.Institut für ZoologieTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations