Macroecological patterns in soil communities

Abstract

Aim To review published evidence regarding the factors that influence the geographic variation in diversity of soil organisms at different spatial scales. Location Global.Methods A search of the relevant literature was conducted using the Web of Science and the author's personal scientific database as the major sources. Special attention was paid to include seminal studies, highly cited papers and/or studies highlighting novel results.Results Despite their significant contribution to global biodiversity, our taxonomic knowledge of soil biota is still poor compared with that of most aboveground organisms. This is particularly evident for small-bodied taxa. Global patterns of soil biodiversity distribution have been poorly documented and are thought to differ significantly from what is reported above-ground. Based on existing data, it appears that microorganisms do not respond to large-scale environmental gradients in the same way as metazoans. Whereas soil microflora seem to be mainly represented by cosmopolitan species, soil animals respond to altitudinal, latitudinal or area gradients in the same way as described for above-ground organisms. At local scales, there is less evidence that local factors regulate above-and below-ground communities in the same way. Except for a few taxa, the humpbacked response to stress and disturbance gradients doesn't seem to apply underground. Soil communities thus appear weakly structured by competition, although competitive constraints may account for assembly rules within specific taxa. The main factor constraining local soil biodiversity is the compact and heterogeneous nature of soils, which provides unrivalled potential for niche partitioning, thus allowing high levels of local biodiversity. This heterogeneity is increased by the impact of ecosystem engineers that generate resource patchiness at a range of spatio-temporal scales.

Short-term sodium inputs attract microbi-detritivores and their predators

“…2 for taxa list). These focal invertebrates accounted for 93% of individuals collected and are frequent subjects in other BFW studies (e.g., Coleman et al, 1996;Chen and Wise, 1999;Wardle, 2002;Decaëns, 2010). Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) accounted for 21% of the total arthropod abundance and twelve of the common ant genera were included Fig.…”

“…BFWs are donor-controlled and comprised of microbes, microbi-detritivores that consume plant detritus and associated microbes, and their predators that interact and ultimately decompose ca. 90% of the productivity (uneaten plant biomass) in green food webs (Fittkau and Klinge, 1973;Coleman et al, 1996;Wardle, 2002;Decaëns, 2010). Consequently, understanding Na-limitation and its effects on BFWs can facilitate our understanding of broad geographic community and decomposition patterns.…”

Toward the use of testate amoeba functional traits as indicator of floodplain restoration success

“…As for many minute to microscopic soil organisms [12] the taxonomy of is poorly resolved [13] and this may undermine their use as bioindicators if species-level identification is required [14]. The solution usually applied in ecological and palaeoecological studies is to lump species in morpho-taxa and species complexes [15].…”

Phylogeny, phylogeography, phylobetadiversity and the molecular analysis of biological communities

“…[42,43]), the potential utility of this approach has not been fully explored. What follows is an examination of recent molecular insights into the mesofaunal component of one of the most complex and poorly studied habitats of terrestrial ecosystems-soils [44]. In the light of these results, we then suggest how progress might best be made to characterize community structure, assembly and ecology within this ecosystem, and other ecosystems.…”