Cited by 233Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biotic and Abiotic Properties Mediating Plant Diversity Effects on Soil Microbial Communities in an Experimental Grassland

Open access

Abstract

Plant diversity drives changes in the soil microbial community which may result in alterations in ecosystem functions. However, the governing factors between the composition of soil microbial communities and plant diversity are not well understood. We investigated the impact of plant diversity (plant species richness and functional group richness) and plant functional group identity on soil microbial biomass and soil microbial community structure in experimental grassland ecosystems. Total microbial biomass and community structure were determined by phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) analysis. The diversity gradient covered 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and 60 plant species and 1, 2, 3 and 4 plant functional groups (grasses, legumes, small herbs and tall herbs). In May 2007, soil samples were taken from experimental plots and from nearby fields and meadows. Beside soil texture, plant species richness was the main driver of soil microbial biomass. Structural equation modeling revealed that the positive plant diversity effect was mainly mediated by higher leaf area index resulting in higher soil moisture in the top soil layer. The fungal-to-bacterial biomass ratio was positively affected by plant functional group richness and negatively by the presence of legumes. Bacteria were more closely related to abiotic differences caused by plant diversity, while fungi were more affected by plant-derived organic matter inputs. We found diverse plant communities promoted faster transition of soil microbial communities typical for arable land towards grassland communities. Although some mechanisms underlying the plant diversity effect on soil microorganisms could be identified, future studies have to determine plant traits shaping soil microbial community structure. We suspect differences in root traits among different plant communities, such as root turnover rates and chemical composition of root exudates, to structure soil microbial communities.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0096182

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Impact of land use and plant diversity soil microbial community. Differences (P<0.05) between experimental plots and control sites (arable land and semi-natural meadows) were analyzed with Tukey's HSD test and indicated by letters. Differences between bare ground vs. vegetated plots and significant effects of plant diversity were tested with ANOVA (Table 1) and indicated by asterisks (P<0.05). Figures show effect of plant species richness on (a) total microbial biomass (b) fungal biomass and the fungal-to-bacterial biomass ratio and (c) number plant functional groups effect on fungal biomass and the fungal-to-bacterial biomass ratio.
Figure 1 Impact of land use and plant diversity soil microbial community. Differences (P<0.05) between experimental plots and control sites (arable land and semi-natural meadows) were analyzed with Tukey's HSD test and indicated by letters. Differences between bare ground vs. vegetated plots and significant effects of plant diversity were tested with ANOVA (Table 1) and indicated by asterisks (P<0.05). Figures show effect of plant species richness on (a) total microbial biomass (b) fungal biomass and the fungal-to-bacterial biomass ratio and (c) number plant functional groups effect on fungal biomass and the fungal-to-bacterial biomass ratio.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Minimal parsimonious models, testing direct and indirect effects of plant diversity on soil microbial community. Minimal SEM for a) total soil microbial biomass (MicBM), b) biomass of Gram positive bacteria (Gram+), c) biomass Gram negative bacteria (Gram−), d) fungal biomass (Fungi), and e) fungal-to-bacterial biomass ratio (F:B ratio). Arrows show significant relationships between variables. Numbers next to arrows show standardized parameter estimates (i.e., standardized regression weights). Circles (e1–e6) indicate error terms, and double-headed arrows indicate significant correlations between the error terms. Squared multiple correlations (R2) for the dependent soil microbial biomass are given next to the box of the dependent variable. See the non-standardized estimates of the regression weights in Table S3a-e. Abbreviations are PSR: plant species richness, FG: plant functional group richness, LEG: presence of legumes, GRASS: presence of grasses, RBM: fine root standing biomass, N%: nitrogen concentration of fine roots, LAI: leaf area index, SM: soil moisture, Clay: clay content of soil
Figure 2 Minimal parsimonious models, testing direct and indirect effects of plant diversity on soil microbial community. Minimal SEM for a) total soil microbial biomass (MicBM), b) biomass of Gram positive bacteria (Gram+), c) biomass Gram negative bacteria (Gram−), d) fungal biomass (Fungi), and e) fungal-to-bacterial biomass ratio (F:B ratio). Arrows show significant relationships between variables. Numbers next to arrows show standardized parameter estimates (i.e., standardized regression weights). Circles (e1–e6) indicate error terms, and double-headed arrows indicate significant correlations between the error terms. Squared multiple correlations (R2) for the dependent soil microbial biomass are given next to the box of the dependent variable. See the non-standardized estimates of the regression weights in Table S3a-e. Abbreviations are PSR: plant species richness, FG: plant functional group richness, LEG: presence of legumes, GRASS: presence of grasses, RBM: fine root standing biomass, N%: nitrogen concentration of fine roots, LAI: leaf area index, SM: soil moisture, Clay: clay content of soilCC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Summary of non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of the PLFAs. Differences among bare ground plots and different plant diversity levels are shown for (a) 1 to 60 sown plant species and (b) 1 to 4 functional groups. Bray-Curtis was used as dissimilarity index.
Figure 3 Summary of non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of the PLFAs. Differences among bare ground plots and different plant diversity levels are shown for (a) 1 to 60 sown plant species and (b) 1 to 4 functional groups. Bray-Curtis was used as dissimilarity index.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lange, M., Habekost, M., Eisenhauer, N., Roscher, C., Bessler, H., Engels, C., Oelmann, Y., Scheu, S., Wilcke, W., Schulze, E.-D., & Gleixner, G.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
  • Friedrich Schiller University Jena (DE)
  • Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (DE)
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
  • University of Göttingen (DE)
  • University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Gleixner, Gerd
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-05-09
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
e96182
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2045806593
Cited by
233
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 4
FWCI
23.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository KITopen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • GRO (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • KITopen (cc-by)
Funders
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (FOR 456)
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
plant diversity, soil microbial communities, plant functional groups, plant species richness, soil microbial biomass, leaf area index, soil moisture, fungal to bacterial ratio, Fabaceae, plant-derived organic matter, root exudates, phospholipid fatty acids, grassland
MeSH terms
Bacteria, Chromatography, Gas, Fatty Acids, Fungi, Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Models, Theoretical, Phospholipids, Plants, Soil, Soil Microbiology, Water, Plant Roots, Biomass, Biodiversity, Grassland

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