4.7 Article

Microbial community variation and its relationship with nitrogen mineralization in historically altered forests

期刊

ECOLOGY
卷 87, 期 3, 页码 570-579

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1890/05-0638

关键词

bacteria; FAME; fungi; land-use history and ecosystem function; PLFA; soil microbial communities; southern Appalachians (USA)

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Past land use can impart soil legacies that have important implications for ecosystem function. Although these legacies have been linked with microbially mediated processes, little is known about the long-term influence of land use on soil microbial Communities themselves. We examined whether historical land use affected soil microbial community composition (lipid profiles) and whether community composition was related to potential net nitrogen (N) mineralization rates in southern Appalachian (USA) forest stands abandoned from agriculture or logging and reforested > 50 yr ago. Microbial community composition was determined by a hybrid procedure of phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) and fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) analysis. We found that community composition varied significantly with past land use. communities in formerly farmed stands had a higher relative abundance of markers for gram-negative bacteria and a lower abundance of markers for fungi compared with previously logged and reference (i.e., no disturbance history) stands. Potential net N mineralization rates were negatively correlated With fungal and gram-negative bacterial markers in both farmed and reference stands, and fungal abundance and soil bulk density effectively predicted mineralization rates in all stands. Our results indicate that the alteration of microbial communities by historical land use may influence the ecosystem processes they mediate. This is in contrast to typical expectations about microbial community resilience to change. Here, the decrease in fungal abundance observed from disturbance appeared to result in decreased nitrogen mineralization over the long term.

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