Is Current Soil Classification Relevant to Soil Function and Soil Diversity?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Is current soil classification relevant to soil function and soil diversity? 1. Defra Project SP1602 code 2. Project title Is current soil classification relevant to soil function and soil diversity? 3. Contractor Centre for Ecology and Hydrology organisation(s) and Bangor University (subcontractor) 54. Total Defra project costs £ 34,943 (agreed fixed price) 5. Project: start date .............. 01/09/2009 end date ............... 31/08/2010 1 Prediction and inter-dependence of soil quality, function and diversity at a national scale Paul Simfukwea, Rob I. Griffithsc, Bridget A. Emmettb, David L. Jonesa*, Paul W. Hilla, David M. Cooperb and Robert T.E. Millsb. Ed Roweb, David Spurgeonc, Brian Reynoldsb. aSchool of the Environment and Natural Resources, Bangor University, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, UK. bCentre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bangor, Environment Centre Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK cCentre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BB Corresponding author: D. L. Jones Corresponding author address: School of the Environment and Natural Resources Bangor University Bangor, Gwynedd. LL57 2UW. UK Corresponding author Tel: +44 1248 382579 Corresponding author Fax: +44 1248 354997 Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected] 2 Abstract Quantifying and understanding the underlying controls of soil functions such as carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) mineralisation across a wide range of ecosystems are critical to the development of future monitoring and modelling activities for tracking and predicting the impacts of future changes of climate and land use. Soil type may provide one variable for better predicting functions and response of soils as may the quantification of relevant elements of soil biodiversity. To test the relationship between soil type and topsoil function and diversity, soils (0-15cm) were sampled from across the UK using a stratified random approach of landcover types as part of an integrated, national monitoring programme. Soils were characterised for a wide range of physico-chemical properties, basal respiration, high (HMW) and low (LMW) 14C molecular-weight substrate-induced respiration, potential N mineralisation, bacterial and invertebrate diversity indices. Discriminant analysis indicated samples were most divergent in the order physico-chemical variables > function > diversity. Soil type was found to explain only 2% of topsoil invertebate diversity and 12% of bacterial diversity, and between 1 and 17% of various measures of C and N mineralisation. Vegetation type explained on average double the variation in topsoil physico-chemical properties, function and diversity relative to soil type. Key physico-chemical variables which determined topsoil physico-chemical cluster associations were total C and bulk density > soil moisture at field capacity whilst soil function clusters were driven by HMW substrate-induced respiration > soil respiration and bacterial diversity. Other factors tested included phenolics, Ca/Al ratios, and nutrient status. Indices of bacterial and invertebrate diversity, whilst generally following a broad soil pH/carbon gradient, were no better predictors of soil C function than the physico-chemical variables. Potential soil N mineralisation was poorly associated with any fundamental physico-chemical or biodiversity topsoil property although there were differences among vegetation types. Combinations of physico-chemical variables using step- wise regression explained 40-50% of basal respiration, HMW substrate-induced respiration, N mineralisation and bacterial diversity. Variation in LMW substrate-induced efficiency, microbial N mineralisation efficiency and basal respiration efficiency between soils were broadly similar across soils suggesting these fundamental processes are remarkably consistent at a national scale under controlled conditions. The results suggest that soil type, and topsoil diversity are poor predictors of topsoil function and do not enhance predictive capacity of physico-chemical measurements. In conclusion, the functioning of UK topsoils may be more dependent on the quality and quantity of present-day organic matter inputs above and below- ground and/or in situ climatic conditions than soil type and biological diversity. Key words: soil carbon, soil classification, microbial respiration, soil microbial activity, soil diversity, soil properties, nitrogen mineralisation, soil survey 3 1 Introduction With anticipated changes in global climate and land use, there is growing interest in understanding how these perturbations affect soil microbial processes and the consequences this will have on terrestrial ecosystem functioning and resilience (Palm et al., 2007). This knowledge can be used to better predict future ecosystem responses via mathematical models. For example, models such as DNDC and Century have been used to facilitate calculation of country-specific greenhouse gas emissions to meet the IPCC Tier II reporting requirements (Smith et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2010). The underlying data used to drive these models is typically derived from national soil inventories and associated maps (Brown et al., 2002). It is therefore vital that these maps accurately reflect the temporal and spatial variability in soil processes. Currently, however, the relationship between microbial diversity and function within and between a wide range of soil types is poorly understood (Wall et al., 2005). One of the most important purposes of a soil classification scheme is for the prediction of soil properties across a range of geographical scales. This is of particular interest to policymakers (e.g. in implementing agri-environment schemes, climate change mitigation, protection of water quality). For this approach to be successful requires that the general tenet that soils in different locations but with the same classification will respond in the same way, holds true. There are a number of assumptions that need to be critically evaluated before accepting this statement such as the consideration that some national classifications were carried out more than 50 years ago when the land use regime, vegetation cover and climatic variables (e.g. rainfall, N and S deposition) may have been significantly different (Vitharana et al., 2008). Furthermore, the scale and accuracy to which soils have been mapped at the landscape level will also be a critical determinant of the reliability of soil maps (Borujeni et al., 2009; Butler, 1980; Vitharana et al., 2008). Specifically, this relates to the potential for abrupt transitions in soil type, which are unrealistic in landscapes where lateral changes in soil are gradual, and that maps essentially ignore spatial variation in soil properties within mapping units (Kempen et al., 2010). This is exemplified by Vitharana et al. (2008) who reported that traditional soil maps were poor predictors of soil chemical properties. Similarly, Jones et al. (2009) found few differences in soil function in relation to organic N cycling over a global latitudinal gradient that encompassed a huge variation in soil type. They ascribed this lack of difference to the large amount of functional redundancy in soil microbial communities suggesting that only some soil processes are highly soil type dependent. Two key soil processes which remain fundamental in providing many ecosystem services are the cycling of carbon and nitrogen. Most current knowledge about the biotic and abiotic controls on C and N cycling has been gathered from discrete local studies on a particular soil type or ecosystem, hampering large scale syntheses across landscapes. Furthermore, the high spatial variability of greenhouse gas emissions from soil even at local scales suggests that defining values for individual soil types may prove difficult. Through changes in soil C and N cycling, below-ground biodiversity has been assumed to influence, ecosystem stability, productivity and resilience towards stress and disturbance (Bengtsson, 1998; Torsvik and Ovreas, 2002; Nannipieri et al., 2003), yet the explicit relationships 4 between microbial diversity and soil function are largely unknown (Wall et al., 2005). For these reasons there have been many studies using both traditional and modern molecular microbiological techniques attempting to characterise the soil biota, in an attempt to map key microbial groups to specific soil functions. Despite a scarcity of evidence suggesting any clear correlations, there has also been much interest in using measures of soil biodiversity to estimate soil quality or health. Again, a major reason for the lack of synthesis on this subject relates to the spatial or temporally defined nature of much of the work carried out preventing comparison across multiple soil ecosystems. Additionally, synthesis by meta-analyses is often hampered by the lack of standard methods of measurement. At the broadest level there is therefore a fundamental need to link measures of soil function with abiotic and biotic variables across multiple soil ecosystems. Concerted efforts using standard methodologies on multiple soil types offer the best opportunity to interrogate the broad scale abiotic and biotic controls of soil functioning across landscape scales. Whilst incorporating fine scale spatial and temporal variability into models is likely to be problematic, it is probable that specific soil ecosystem types will show different ranges of natural functional variability. The recognition and subsequent experimental manipulation of