Cargando…

Microbial respiration, but not biomass, responded linearly to increasing light fraction organic matter input: Consequences for carbon sequestration

Rebuilding ‘lost’ soil carbon (C) is a priority in mitigating climate change and underpinning key soil functions that support ecosystem services. Microorganisms determine if fresh C input is converted into stable soil organic matter (SOM) or lost as CO(2). Here we quantified if microbial biomass and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rui, Yichao, Murphy, Daniel V., Wang, Xiaoli, Hoyle, Frances C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5067501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27752083
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep35496
_version_ 1782460651305697280
author Rui, Yichao
Murphy, Daniel V.
Wang, Xiaoli
Hoyle, Frances C.
author_facet Rui, Yichao
Murphy, Daniel V.
Wang, Xiaoli
Hoyle, Frances C.
author_sort Rui, Yichao
collection PubMed
description Rebuilding ‘lost’ soil carbon (C) is a priority in mitigating climate change and underpinning key soil functions that support ecosystem services. Microorganisms determine if fresh C input is converted into stable soil organic matter (SOM) or lost as CO(2). Here we quantified if microbial biomass and respiration responded positively to addition of light fraction organic matter (LFOM, representing recent inputs of plant residue) in an infertile semi-arid agricultural soil. Field trial soil with different historical plant residue inputs [soil C content: control (tilled) = 9.6 t C ha(−1) versus tilled + plant residue treatment (tilled + OM) = 18.0 t C ha(−1)] were incubated in the laboratory with a gradient of LFOM equivalent to 0 to 3.8 t C ha(−1) (0 to 500% LFOM). Microbial biomass C significantly declined under increased rates of LFOM addition while microbial respiration increased linearly, leading to a decrease in the microbial C use efficiency. We hypothesise this was due to insufficient nutrients to form new microbial biomass as LFOM input increased the ratio of C to nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur of soil. Increased CO(2) efflux but constrained microbial growth in response to LFOM input demonstrated the difficulty for C storage in this environment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5067501
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50675012016-10-26 Microbial respiration, but not biomass, responded linearly to increasing light fraction organic matter input: Consequences for carbon sequestration Rui, Yichao Murphy, Daniel V. Wang, Xiaoli Hoyle, Frances C. Sci Rep Article Rebuilding ‘lost’ soil carbon (C) is a priority in mitigating climate change and underpinning key soil functions that support ecosystem services. Microorganisms determine if fresh C input is converted into stable soil organic matter (SOM) or lost as CO(2). Here we quantified if microbial biomass and respiration responded positively to addition of light fraction organic matter (LFOM, representing recent inputs of plant residue) in an infertile semi-arid agricultural soil. Field trial soil with different historical plant residue inputs [soil C content: control (tilled) = 9.6 t C ha(−1) versus tilled + plant residue treatment (tilled + OM) = 18.0 t C ha(−1)] were incubated in the laboratory with a gradient of LFOM equivalent to 0 to 3.8 t C ha(−1) (0 to 500% LFOM). Microbial biomass C significantly declined under increased rates of LFOM addition while microbial respiration increased linearly, leading to a decrease in the microbial C use efficiency. We hypothesise this was due to insufficient nutrients to form new microbial biomass as LFOM input increased the ratio of C to nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur of soil. Increased CO(2) efflux but constrained microbial growth in response to LFOM input demonstrated the difficulty for C storage in this environment. Nature Publishing Group 2016-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC5067501/ /pubmed/27752083 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep35496 Text en Copyright © 2016, The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Article
Rui, Yichao
Murphy, Daniel V.
Wang, Xiaoli
Hoyle, Frances C.
Microbial respiration, but not biomass, responded linearly to increasing light fraction organic matter input: Consequences for carbon sequestration
title Microbial respiration, but not biomass, responded linearly to increasing light fraction organic matter input: Consequences for carbon sequestration
title_full Microbial respiration, but not biomass, responded linearly to increasing light fraction organic matter input: Consequences for carbon sequestration
title_fullStr Microbial respiration, but not biomass, responded linearly to increasing light fraction organic matter input: Consequences for carbon sequestration
title_full_unstemmed Microbial respiration, but not biomass, responded linearly to increasing light fraction organic matter input: Consequences for carbon sequestration
title_short Microbial respiration, but not biomass, responded linearly to increasing light fraction organic matter input: Consequences for carbon sequestration
title_sort microbial respiration, but not biomass, responded linearly to increasing light fraction organic matter input: consequences for carbon sequestration
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5067501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27752083
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep35496
work_keys_str_mv AT ruiyichao microbialrespirationbutnotbiomassrespondedlinearlytoincreasinglightfractionorganicmatterinputconsequencesforcarbonsequestration
AT murphydanielv microbialrespirationbutnotbiomassrespondedlinearlytoincreasinglightfractionorganicmatterinputconsequencesforcarbonsequestration
AT wangxiaoli microbialrespirationbutnotbiomassrespondedlinearlytoincreasinglightfractionorganicmatterinputconsequencesforcarbonsequestration
AT hoylefrancesc microbialrespirationbutnotbiomassrespondedlinearlytoincreasinglightfractionorganicmatterinputconsequencesforcarbonsequestration