Response of Soil Denitrifying Communities to Long-Term Prescribed Burning in Two Australian Sclerophyll Forests
Abstract
Low-intensity prescribed burning is a common forest management tool and plays a major role in modifying biogeochemical cycling through the alteration of substrate availability and microbial communities. In this study, we assessed the response of microbial community to repeated prescribed burning in two sclerophyll forests (the Bauple site, dry, annual rainfall 1000 mm; and the Peachester site, wet, 1711 mm) in southeast Queensland, Australia. At the dry sclerophyll forest (the Bauple site), annual and triennial burning did not significantly alter the soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) content, while at the wet scleophyll forest (the Peachester site), two yearly burnings resulted in significantly lower soil total C and N contents compared to the long unburnt treatment. In spite of these different responses, prescribed burning regimes did not significantly influence the abundance of 16S rRNA or denitrifying gene (narG, nirK, nirS, nosZ) at both sites. These results indicated that, long-term prescribed burning has little effect on the denitrifying communities, while it has varying effects on soil chemical properties at the two sites, which are likely to be explained by differences in vegetation type and soil moisture regime.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In tropical grasslands, savannas and forests, repeated burning can deplete total soil carbon and nutrients, but usually only at high frequencies and over decadal time-scales.
“In tropical grasslands, savannas and forests, repeated burning can also deplete total soil carbon and nutrients, but usually only at high frequencies and over decadal time-scales (Liu, Chen, Wang, Hughes, & Lewis, 2015;Pellegrini, Hedin, Staver, & Govender, 2015).”
From Fire as a fundamental ecological process: Research advances and frontiers (2020) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2015
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fire as a fundamental ecological process: Research advances and frontiers
McLauchlan, K. K., Higuera, P. E., Miesel, J., Rogers, B. M., Schweitzer, J., Shuman, J. K., Tepley, A. J., Varner, J. M., Veblen, T. T., Adalsteinsson, S. A., et al. (2020) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.13403 · Cited by 729 · see citing works
“In tropical grasslands, savannas and forests, repeated burning can also deplete total soil carbon and nutrients, but usually only at high frequencies and over decadal time-scales (Liu, Chen, Wang, Hughes, & Lewis, 2015; Pellegrini, Hedin, Staver, & Govender, 2015).”
- Authors
- Liu, X., Chen, C., Wang, W., Hughes, J. M., & Lewis, T.
- Affiliations
- Griffith University (AU)
- University of the Sunshine Coast (AU)
- Venue
- Geomicrobiology Journal
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-08-09
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 577-584
- ISSN
- 0149-0451 (ISSN-L)
- 1521-0529
- OpenAlex
- W1494434719
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 0.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Geomicrobiology Journal (publishedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
- Keywords
- prescribed burning, denitrifying bacteria, soil microbial communities, sclerophyll forest, soil carbon, soil nitrogen, denitrification genes, 16S rRNA, soil water regime, vegetation types, biogeochemical cycles, fire regimes
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review