title: Litter quality versus soil microbial community controls over decomposition: a quantitative analysis.
abstract: The possible effects of soil microbial community structure on organic matter decomposition rates have been widely acknowledged, but are poorly understood. Understanding these relationships is complicated by the fact that microbial community structure and function are likely to both affect and be affected by organic matter quality and chemistry, thus it is difficult to draw mechanistic conclusions from field studies. We conducted a reciprocal soil inoculum × litter transplant laboratory incubation experiment using samples collected from a set of sites that have similar climate and plant species composition but vary significantly in bacterial community structure and litter quality. The results showed that litter quality explained the majority of variation in decomposition rates under controlled laboratory conditions: over the course of the 162-day incubation, litter quality explained nearly two-thirds (64%) of variation in decomposition rates, and a smaller proportion (25%) was explained by variation in the inoculum type. In addition, the relative importance of inoculum type on soil respiration increased over the course of the experiment, and was significantly higher in microcosms with lower litter quality relative to those with higher quality litter. We also used molecular phylogenetics to examine the relationships between bacterial community composition and soil respiration in samples through time. Pyrosequencing revealed that bacterial community composition explained 32 % of the variation in respiration rates. However, equal portions (i.e., 16%) of the variation in bacterial community composition were explained by inoculum type and litter quality, reflecting the importance of both the meta-community and the environment in bacterial assembly. Taken together, these results indicate that the effects of changing microbial community composition on decomposition are likely to be smaller than the potential effects of climate change and/or litter quality changes in response to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations or atmospheric nutrient deposition.
authors.forename: Cory C
authors.initials: CC
authors.lastname: Cleveland
authors.forename: Sasha C
authors.initials: SC
authors.lastname: Reed
authors.forename: Adrienne B
authors.initials: AB
authors.lastname: Keller
authors.forename: Diana R
authors.initials: DR
authors.lastname: Nemergut
authors.forename: Sean P
authors.initials: SP
authors.lastname: O'Neill
authors.forename: Rebecca
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Ostertag
authors.forename: Peter M
authors.initials: PM
authors.lastname: Vitousek
mesh_terms: D001419:Bacteria / Q000145:classification / Q000378:metabolism*; D057486:Carbon Cycle; D002245:Carbon Dioxide / Q000737:chemistry; D017753:Ecosystem; D006254:Hawaii; D059013:Microbial Consortia; D018515:Plant Leaves; D010944:Plants; D012336:RNA, Ribosomal, 16S / Q000235:genetics; D012987:Soil / Q000737:chemistry*; D012988:Soil Microbiology
chemical_list: D012336:RNA, Ribosomal, 16S; D012987:Soil; D002245:Carbon Dioxide
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2012 Oct;15(10):1180-8
references.pmid: 22897741
references.citation: Front Microbiol. 2012 Mar 23;3:82
references.pmid: 22470368
references.citation: ISME J. 2011 Apr;5(4):590-600
references.pmid: 21048801
references.citation: Ecol Appl. 2013 Jan;23(1):255-72
references.pmid: 23495650
references.citation: Nat Methods. 2010 Sep;7(9):668-9
references.pmid: 20805793
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jan 17;103(3):626-31
references.pmid: 16407148
references.citation: Ecology. 2006 Jan;87(1):15-25
references.pmid: 16634293
references.citation: Oecologia. 2005 Jan;142(3):465-73
references.pmid: 15558326
references.citation: Oecologia. 2010 Oct;164(2):521-31
references.pmid: 20454976
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2010 Oct 1;26(19):2460-1
references.pmid: 20709691
references.citation: ISME J. 2013 Aug;7(8):1609-19
references.pmid: 23466702
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010 Feb;76(4):999-1007
references.pmid: 20023089
references.citation: ISME J. 2011 Feb;5(2):169-72
references.pmid: 20827291
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2008 Oct;11(10):1065-71
references.pmid: 18627410
references.citation: Ecology. 2010 Dec;91(12):3463-70; discussion 3503-14
references.pmid: 21302816
references.citation: Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2013 Sep;77(3):342-56
references.pmid: 24006468
references.citation: Oecologia. 2001 Apr;127(2):153-165
references.pmid: 24577644
references.citation: Ecology. 2009 Feb;90(2):441-51
references.pmid: 19323228
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2007 Nov;62(2):161-70
references.pmid: 17937673
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 1995 Feb;10(2):63-6
references.pmid: 21236954
references.citation: ISME J. 2010 Jun;4(6):729-38
references.pmid: 20130658
references.citation: Ecology. 2006 Jan;87(1):53-63
references.pmid: 16634296
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Dec;71(12):8228-35
references.pmid: 16332807
references.citation: Nat Methods. 2010 May;7(5):335-6
references.pmid: 20383131
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Nov 18;105(46):17994-9
references.pmid: 19004758