Biodiversity, both aboveground and belowground, is negatively affected by global changes such as drought or warming. This loss of biodiversity impacts Earth's ecosystems, as there is a positive ...relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (BEF). Even though soils host a large fraction of biodiversity that underlies major ecosystem functions, studies exploring the relationship between soil biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (sBEF) as influenced by global change drivers (GCDs) remain scarce. Here we highlight the need to decipher sBEF relationships under the effect of interactive GCDs that are intimately connected in a changing world. We first state that sBEF relationships depend on the type of function (e.g., C cycling or decomposition) and biodiversity facet (e.g., abundance, species richness, or biomass) considered. Then, we shed light on the impact of single and interactive GCDs on soil biodiversity and sBEF and show that results from scarce studies studying interactive effects range from antagonistic to additive to synergistic when two individual GCDs cooccur. This indicates the need for studies quantitatively accounting for the impacts of interactive GCDs on sBEF relationships. Finally, we provide guidelines for optimized methodological and experimental approaches to study sBEF in a changing world that will provide more valuable information on the real impact of (interactive) GCDs on sBEF. Together, we highlight the need to decipher the sBEF relationship in soils to better understand soil functioning under ongoing global changes, as changes in sBEF are of immediate importance for ecosystem functioning.
Studies exploring the relationship between soil biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (sBEF) as influenced by global change drivers (GCDs) remain scarce. Here we highlight the need to decipher sBEF relationships under the effect of interactive GCDs that are intimately connected in a changing world. Finally, we provide guidelines for optimized methodological and experimental approaches to study sBEF in a changing world that will provide more valuable information on the real impact of (interactive) GCDs on sBEF
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
2.
Microbiome predators in changing soils Hu, Shunran; Li, Guixin; Berlinches de Gea, Alejandro ...
Environmental microbiology,
November 2023, Volume:
25, Issue:
11
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
Microbiome predators shape the soil microbiome and thereby soil functions. However, this knowledge has been obtained from small‐scale observations in fundamental rather than applied settings and has ...focused on a few species under ambient conditions. Therefore, there are several unaddressed questions on soil microbiome predators: (1) What is the role of microbiome predators in soil functioning? (2) How does global change affect microbiome predators and their functions? (3) How can microbiome predators be applied in agriculture? We show that there is sufficient evidence for the vital role of microbiome predators in soils and stress that global changes impact their functions, something that urgently needs to be addressed to better understand soil functioning as a whole. We are convinced that there is a potential for the application of microbiome predators in agricultural settings, as they may help to sustainably increase plant growth. Therefore, we plea for more applied research on microbiome predators.
By providing a state‐of‐the‐art overview of knowledge on soil microbiome predators, we highlight three research topics to focus on to better understand the general role of microbiome predators in natural and agricultural soils under current and future climate change. This overview will advance and guide future research in this emerging field.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (BEF) often correlate positively with BEF studies focusing mostly on plant diversity manipulations. Plant performance is directly and indirectly impacted by ...soil organisms, but the role of increasing soil biodiversity on plant performance has mainly been tested in an uncontrolled way or with low biodiversity levels. An additional knowledge gap exists on the effect of (interactive) global change drivers – such as drought – on the soil BEF (sBEF) relationship. We here tested sBEF relationships by manipulating microbiome predatory protist diversity (0–30 species) in ambient controls and under abiotic (drought) and biotic stresses (nematode addition dominated by plant parasites). We then used plant (Solanum lycopersicum) biomass as a response in an 8-week greenhouse experiment. We show that the increasing biodiversity effect on plant biomass ranged from positive (up to 23% with biotic stress), to neutral (ambient conditions and with both stresses co-occurring), to negative (up to 39% with abiotic stress). Together, sBEF relationships were context-dependent and often contradicted generally reported positive (s)BEF relationships. Therefore, we propose that positive sBEF claims likely are not the norm and should be evaluated in a context-dependent manner. To better elucidate sBEF relationships, more manipulative studies should be performed under different conditions such as global change drivers and with a range of organismal groups.
•SBEF relationships reported were context-dependent, challenging (s)BEF studies.•Protist diversity, though indirectly linked to plants, impacts plant performance.•We show no evidence of functional similarity effects on the sBEF relationship.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Predatory protists play a central role in nutrient cycling and are involved in other ecosystem functions by predating the microbiome. While most soil predatory protist species arguably are ...bacterivorous, some protist species can prey on eukaryotes. However, studies about soil protist feeding mainly focused on bacteria as prey and rarely tested both bacteria and eukaryotes as potential prey. In this study, we aimed to decipher soil predator–prey interactions of three amoebozoan and three heterolobosean soil protists and potential bacterial (Escherichia coli; 0.5–1.5 µm), fungal (Saccharomyces cerevisiae; 5–7 µm) and protist (Plasmodiophora brassicae; 3–5 µm) prey, either as individual prey or in all their combinations. We related protist performance (relative abundance) and prey consumption (qPCR) to the protist phylogenetic group and volume. We showed that for the six soil protist predators, the most suitable prey was E. coli, but some species also grew on P. brassicae or S. cerevisiae. While protist relative abundances and growth rates depended on prey type in a protist species-specific manner, phylogenetic groups and volume affected prey consumption. Yet we conclude that protist feeding patterns are mainly species-specific and that some known bacterivores might be more generalist than expected, even preying on eukaryotic plant pathogens such as P. brassicae.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Load filters
No result was selected!
Please select the results that you wish to export.
The search was successfully saved.
Editing
The search could not be saved.
Saved searches can be viewed in the list My searches.
The changes made to the saved search were saved successfully.
Save search
Shelf entry
No result was selected!
Adding material to shelf was successful.
Adding material to shelf was partly successful.
Adding material to shelf failed completely.
It was not necessary to add the material to the shelf.
Please select the results that you want to put on shelf!
On shelf the following records have been successfully added:
On shelf the following records have been successfully added:
