Dynamic relationships between microbial biomass, respiration, inorganic nutrients and enzyme activities: informing enzyme-based decomposition models

We re-examined data from a recent litter decay study to determine if additional insights could be gained to inform decomposition modeling. Rinkes et al. (2013) conducted 14-day laboratory incubations of sugar maple (Acer saccharum) or white oak (Quercus alba) leaves, mixed with sand (0.4% organic C content) or loam (4.1% organic C). They measured microbial biomass C, carbon dioxide efflux, soil ammonium, nitrate, and phosphate concentrations, and β-glucosidase (BG), β-N-acetyl-glucosaminidase (NAG), and acid phosphatase (AP) activities on days 1, 3, and 14. Analyses of relationships among variables yielded different insights than original analyses of individual variables. For example, although respiration rates per g soil were higher for loam than sand, rates per g soil C were actually higher for sand than loam, and rates per g microbial C showed little difference between treatments. Microbial biomass C peaked on day 3 when biomass-specific activities of enzymes were lowest, suggesting uptake of litter C without extracellular hydrolysis. This result refuted a common model assumption that all enzyme production is constitutive and thus proportional to biomass, and/or indicated that part of litter decay is independent of enzyme activity. The length and angle of vectors defined by ratios of enzyme activities (BG/NAG vs. BG/AP) represent relative microbial investments in C (length), and N and P (angle) acquiring enzymes. Shorter lengths on day 3 suggested low C limitation, whereas greater lengths on day 14 suggested an increase in C limitation with decay. The soils and litter in this study generally had stronger P limitation (angles >45°). Reductions in vector angles to <45° for sand by day 14 suggested a shift to N limitation. These relational variables inform enzyme-based models, and are usually much less ambiguous when obtained from a single study in which measurements were made on the same samples than when extrapolated from separate studies.

[1]  K. Giller,et al.  Driven by Nature: Plant Litter Quality and Decomposition , 1996 .

[2]  A. Konopka,et al.  Modeling Microbial Dynamics in Heterogeneous Environments: Growth on Soil Carbon Sources , 2011, Microbial Ecology.

[3]  K. Domsch,et al.  Ratios of microbial biomass carbon to total organic carbon in arable soils , 1989 .

[4]  R. Sinsabaugh,et al.  Ecoenzymatic Stoichiometry and Ecological Theory , 2012 .

[5]  E. Puglisi,et al.  Soil enzymology: classical and molecular approaches , 2012, Biology and Fertility of Soils.

[6]  J. Deming,et al.  A Predictive Model of Bacterial Foraging by Means of Freely Released Extracellular Enzymes , 1998, Microbial Ecology.

[7]  S. Allison.  Soil minerals and humic acids alter enzyme stability: implications for ecosystem processes , 2006 .

[8]  K. Suberkropp.  Fungal Growth, Production, and Sporulation during Leaf Decomposition in Two Streams , 2001, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[9]  T. A. Black,et al.  Thermal optimality of net ecosystem exchange of carbon dioxide and underlying mechanisms. , 2012, The New phytologist.

[10]  R. Wetzel,et al.  Microbial biomass and production associated with decaying leaf litter of the emergent macrophyte Juncus effusus , 2000 .

[11]  D. Moorhead,et al.  Microbial substrate preference and community dynamics during decomposition of Acer saccharum , 2011 .

[12]  Davey L. Jones,et al.  Mineralization of low molecular weight carbon substrates in soil solution under laboratory and field conditions , 2012 .

[13]  R. Sinsabaugh,et al.  Soil enzymes in a changing environment: Current knowledge and future directions , 2013 .

[14]  S. Allison,et al.  Cooperation, Competition, and Coalitions in Enzyme-Producing Microbes: Social Evolution and Nutrient Depolymerization Rates , 2012, Front. Microbio..

[15]  A. Fuggi,et al.  Enzyme dynamics on decomposing leaf litter of Cistus incanus and Myrtus communis in a Mediterranean ecosystem , 2000 .

[16]  J. Neff,et al.  Does adding microbial mechanisms of decomposition improve soil organic matter models? A comparison of four models using data from a pulsed rewetting experiment , 2009 .

[17]  A. Fuggi,et al.  Litter-fall and litter decomposition in a low Mediterranean shrubland , 2003, Biology and Fertility of Soils.

[18]  Joshua P. Schimel,et al.  The implications of exoenzyme activity on microbial carbon and nitrogen limitation in soil: a theoretical model , 2003 .

[19]  Amilcare Porporato,et al.  Soil carbon and nitrogen mineralization: Theory and models across scales , 2009 .

[20]  Y. Kuzyakov,et al.  Mechanisms of real and apparent priming effects and their dependence on soil microbial biomass and community structure: critical review , 2008, Biology and Fertility of Soils.

[21]  D. Moorhead,et al.  Interactions between leaf litter quality, particle size, and microbial community during the earliest stage of decay , 2013, Biogeochemistry.

[22]  W. Parton,et al.  Analysis of factors controlling soil organic matter levels in Great Plains grasslands , 1987 .

[23]  S D Allison,et al.  A trait-based approach for modelling microbial litter decomposition. , 2012, Ecology letters.

[24]  M. Gessner.  Mass loss, fungal colonisation and nutrient dynamics of Phragmites australis leaves during senescence and early aerial decay , 2001 .

[25]  D. Moorhead,et al.  A theoretical model of C- and N-acquiring exoenzyme activities, which balances microbial demands during decomposition , 2012 .

[26]  S. Allison,et al.  Stoichiometry of soil enzyme activity at global scale. , 2008, Ecology letters.

[27]  Björn Berg,et al.  Plant Litter: Decomposition, Humus Formation, Carbon Sequestration , 2003 .

[28]  W. Post,et al.  Parameter estimation for models of ligninolytic and cellulolytic enzyme kinetics , 2012 .

[29]  David L. Jones,et al.  The carbon we do not see : The impact of low molecular weight compounds on carbon dynamics and respiration in forest soils - A review , 2005 .

[30]  David A. Wardle,et al.  CONTROLS OF TEMPORAL VARIABILITY OF THE SOIL MICROBIAL BIOMASS: A GLOBAL-SCALE SYNTHESIS , 1998 .

[31]  S. Allison,et al.  Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[32]  R. Jandl,et al.  Soil Carbon , 2014 .

[33]  James H. Brown,et al.  The metabolic basis of whole-organism RNA and phosphorus content. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  Y. Kuzyakov.  Priming effects : interactions between living and dead organic matter , 2010 .

[35]  A. Fuggi,et al.  Lignin and cellulose degradation and nitrogen dynamics during decomposition of three leaf litter species in a Mediterranean ecosystem , 2005 .

[36]  R. Sinsabaugh,et al.  Microbial enzyme activities as indicators of organic matter processing rates in a Lake Erie coastal wetland , 1995 .

[37]  D. Moorhead,et al.  A THEORETICAL MODEL OF LITTER DECAY AND MICROBIAL INTERACTION , 2006 .

[38]  Stefano Manzoni,et al.  Carbon use efficiency of microbial communities: stoichiometry, methodology and modelling. , 2013, Ecology letters.

[39]  A. Fuggi,et al.  Decomposition dynamics of Myrtus communis and Quercus ilex leaf litter: Mass loss, microbial activity and quality change , 2007 .

[40]  S. Allison,et al.  Evolutionary-Economic Principles as Regulators of Soil Enzyme Production and Ecosystem Function , 2010 .

[41]  W. Post,et al.  Development of microbial-enzyme-mediated decomposition model parameters through steady-state and dynamic analyses. , 2013, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[42]  D. Moorhead,et al.  Impact of fine litter chemistry on lignocellulolytic enzyme efficiency during decomposition of maize leaf and root in soil , 2013, Biogeochemistry.

[43]  J. Skjemstad,et al.  Calibration of the Rothamsted organic carbon turnover model (RothC ver. 26.3), using measurable soil organic carbon pools , 2004 .

[44]  Mark A. Bradford,et al.  Soil-carbon response to warming dependent on microbial physiology , 2010 .

[45]  J. Elser,et al.  Ecological Stoichiometry: The Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere , 2002 .

[46]  S. Allison.  Cheaters, diffusion and nutrients constrain decomposition by microbial enzymes in spatially structured environments , 2005 .

[47]  P. Nannipieri,et al.  Kinetics of enzyme reactions in soil environments , 1998 .

[48]  W. Post,et al.  A theoretical reassessment of microbial maintenance and implications for microbial ecology modeling. , 2012, FEMS microbiology ecology.

[49]  J. Reynolds,et al.  20 – Modeling the Response of Arctic Plants to Changing Climate , 1992 .

[50]  Björn Berg,et al.  Litter decomposition and organic matter turnover in northern forest soils , 2000 .

[51]  R. Sinsabaugh,et al.  Enzymic analysis of microbial pattern and process , 2004, Biology and Fertility of Soils.

[52]  A. Fuggi,et al.  Decomposition of Cistus incanus leaf litter in a Mediterranean maquis ecosystem : mass loss, microbial enzyme activities and nutrient changes , 2001 .

[53]  H. Parnas.  Model for decomposition of organic material by microorganisms , 1975 .