4.7 Article

Can the comparison of above-and below-ground litter decomposition improve our understanding of bacterial and fungal successions?

期刊

SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 132, 期 -, 页码 24-27

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.01.022

关键词

Soil; Pyrosequencing; Decomposition; Succession dynamics; Microbial community structure

资金

  1. INRA
  2. Department of Environment and Agronomy
  3. SOFIA project (ANR Agrobiosphere) [ANR-11-AGRO-0004]
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-11-AGRO-0004] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relationship between litter quality and life strategy of soil microorganisms (copiotrophy vs oligotrophy) is important for understanding soil processes such as decomposition. Yet, whether and how this relationship may vary with the addition of substrates of contrasting quality (i.e., labile vs recalcitrant) has rarely been evaluated for both bacteria and fungi simultaneously. Using a 3-month incubation experiment with either maize leaves (enriched In soluble carbon (C)) or roots (enriched in structural C), we measured changes in litter quality in association with the composition of bacterial and fungal communities assessed via pyrosequencing after 0, 15, 35 and 91 days. Overall, leaf addition led to a higher differentiation from the unamended soil for bacterial and early-decomposers fungal communities compared with root addition. This finding clearly indicates that the differentiation of microbial communities strongly depends on substrate quality for both bacterial and fungal communities. Further, the differentiation of bacterial communities after litter addition remained relatively similar throughout the incubation period. This suggests that many bacterial taxa are more adapted to complex C compounds than previously thought. Finally, our study underscores the limits of the copiotroph-oligotroph model at the phylum level and the necessity to work at a finer taxonomic resolution.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据