| Title |
Long-Term Harvest Residue Retention Could Decrease Soil Bacterial Diversities Probably Due to Favouring Oligotrophic Lineages
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Microbial Ecology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00248-018-1162-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yaling Zhang, Manyun Zhang, Li Tang, Rongxiao Che, Hong Chen, Tim Blumfield, Sue Boyd, Mone Nouansyvong, Zhihong Xu |
| Abstract |
Harvest residues contain large stores of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) in forest plantations. Decomposing residues can release labile C and N into soil and thus provide substrates for soil bacterial communities. Previous studies showed that residue retention could increase soil C and N pools and activate bacterial communities in the short term (≤ 10 years). The current study examined the effects of a long-term (19-year) harvest residue retention on soil total and water and hot water extractable C and N pools, as well as bacterial communities via Illumina MiSeq sequencing. The experiment was established in a randomised complete block design with four replications, southeast Queensland of Australia, including no (R0), single (R1, 51 to 74 t ha-1dry matter) and double quantities (R2, 140 t ha-1dry matter) of residues retained. Generally, no significant differences existed in total C and N, as well as C and N pools extracted by water and hot water among the three treatments, probably due to negligible amounts of labile C and N released from harvest residues. Soil δ15N significantly decreased from R0 to R1 to R2, probably due to reduced N leaching with residue retention (P < 0.001). Residue retention increased the relative abundances of Actinobacteria (P = 0.016) and Spartobacteria (P < 0.001), whereas decreased Betaproteobacteria (P = 0.050). This favour for the oligotrophic groups probably caused the decrease in the bacterial diversity as revealed by Shannon index (P = 0.025). Hence, our study suggests that residue retention is not an appropriate management practice in the long term. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 9% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 18% |
| Engineering | 2 | 9% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 March 2018.
All research outputs
#5,810,205
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Microbial Ecology
#603
of 2,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,549
of 331,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbial Ecology
#24
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.