Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012;7(8):e43292.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043292. Epub 2012 Aug 22.

General Relationships Between Abiotic Soil Properties and Soil Biota Across Spatial Scales and Different Land-Use Types

Affiliations
Free PMC article

General Relationships Between Abiotic Soil Properties and Soil Biota Across Spatial Scales and Different Land-Use Types

Klaus Birkhofer et al. PLoS One. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Very few principles have been unraveled that explain the relationship between soil properties and soil biota across large spatial scales and different land-use types. Here, we seek these general relationships using data from 52 differently managed grassland and forest soils in three study regions spanning a latitudinal gradient in Germany. We hypothesize that, after extraction of variation that is explained by location and land-use type, soil properties still explain significant proportions of variation in the abundance and diversity of soil biota. If the relationships between predictors and soil organisms were analyzed individually for each predictor group, soil properties explained the highest amount of variation in soil biota abundance and diversity, followed by land-use type and sampling location. After extraction of variation that originated from location or land-use, abiotic soil properties explained significant amounts of variation in fungal, meso- and macrofauna, but not in yeast or bacterial biomass or diversity. Nitrate or nitrogen concentration and fungal biomass were positively related, but nitrate concentration was negatively related to the abundances of Collembola and mites and to the myriapod species richness across a range of forest and grassland soils. The species richness of earthworms was positively correlated with clay content of soils independent of sample location and land-use type. Our study indicates that after accounting for heterogeneity resulting from large scale differences among sampling locations and land-use types, soil properties still explain significant proportions of variation in fungal and soil fauna abundance or diversity. However, soil biota was also related to processes that act at larger spatial scales and bacteria or soil yeasts only showed weak relationships to soil properties. We therefore argue that more general relationships between soil properties and soil biota can only be derived from future studies that consider larger spatial scales and different land-use types.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. The relationship between soil properties and abundance/biomass of soil biota.
Distance-based RDA triplot showing the relationship between soil properties and A) the abundance of soil fauna, B) the biomass of arbuscular mycorrhiza (AMF) and C) the biomass of saprotrophic fungi (SF1 & 2) in three study regions (colours: blue, Schorfheide-Chorin; red, Hainich-Dün; green, Schwäbische-Alb) and six land-use types (symbols). Vectors for soil properties are only shown if multiple correlation coefficients >0.4 (clay, clay content; NH4, ammonium content; NO3, nitrate content; Nt, total soil nitrogen & pH, soil pH).
Figure 2
Figure 2. The relationship between soil properties and diversity of soil biota.
Distance-based RDA triplot showing the relationship between the diversity of soil fauna (arrows) and soil properties (lines) in three study regions (colours: blue, Schorfheide-Chorin; red, Hainich-Dün; green, Schwäbische-Alb) and six land-use types (symbols). Vectors for soil properties are only shown if multiple correlation coefficients >0.4 (clay, clay content; NO3, nitrate content; Nt, total soil nitrogen & P, plant-available phosphorous). For a legend to the symbols please refer to Fig. 1.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 17 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Ettema CH, Wardle DA (2002) Spatial soil ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 17: 177–183.
    1. Kappes H, Sundermann A, Haase P (2011) Distant land use affects terrestrial and aquatic habitats of high naturalness. Biodiversity Conserv. 20: 2297–2309.
    1. Fierer N, Grandy AS, Six J, Paul EA (2009) Searching for unifying principles in soil ecology. Soil Biol Biochem 41: 2249–2256.
    1. Brussaard L, Behan-Pelletier VM, Bignell DE, Brown VK, Didden W, et al. (1997) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in soil. Ambio 26: 563–570.
    1. Sala OE, Chapin III FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, et al. (2000) Biodiversity - Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770–1774. - PubMed

Publication types

Grant support

This work was funded by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) Priority Program 1374 “Infrastructure-Biodiversity-Exploratories”. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Feedback