Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 9, Supplement 1, pp 167–173 | Cite as

Long-term response of the nematode community to elevated atmospheric CO2 in a temperate dry grassland soil

  • P. Nagy
  • G. BakonyiEmail author
  • E. Péli
  • I. Sonnemann
  • Z. Tuba
Article

Abstract

Long-term effects of the elevated atmospheric CO2 on biosphere have been in focus of research since the last few decades. In this experiment undisturbed soil monoliths of loess grassland were exposed to an elevated CO2 environment (two-times the ambient CO2 level) for a period of six years with the aid of the open top chamber method. Control without a chamber and CO2 elevation was applied as well. Elevated CO2 level had very little impact on soil food web. It did not influence either root and microbial biomass or microbial and nematode community structure. The only significant response was that density of the bacterial feeder genus Heterocephalobus increased in the chamber with elevated CO2 concentration. Application of the open top chambers initiated more changes on nematodes than the elevated CO2 level. Open top chamber (OTC) method decreased nematode density (total and plant feeder as well) to less than half of the original level. Negative effect was found on the genus level in the case of fungal feeder Aphelenchoides, plant feeder Helicotylenchus and Paratylenchus. It is very likely that the significantly lower belowground root biomass and partly its decreased quality reflected by the increased C/N ratio are the main responsible factors for the lower density of the plant feeder nematodes in the plots of chambers. According to diversity profiles, MI and MI(2–5) parameters, nematode communities in the open top chambers (both on ambient and elevated CO2 level) seem to be more structured than those under normal circumstances six years after start of the experiment.

Keywords

Community structure Elevated CO2 Nematodes Root biomass 

Abbreviation

OTC

Open top chamber

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashenden, T.W., Baxter, R. and Rafarel, C.R. 1992. An inexpensive system for exposing plants inthe fieldto elevated concentrations of CO2. Plant Cell Environment 15:365–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres, E., Wall, D.H., Simmons, B.L., Field, C.B., Milchunas, D.G., Morgan, J.A. and Roy, J. 2008. Belowground nematode herbivores are resistant to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations in grassland ecosystems.Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40: 978–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakonyi, G. and Nagy, P. 2000. Temperature- and moisture –induced changes in the structure of the nematode fauna of a semiarid grassland – patterns and mechanisms. Global Change Biology 6:679–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardgett, R.D. 2005. The Biology of Soil. A Community and Ecosystem Approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bardgett, R.D., Cook, R., Yeates, G.W. and Denton, C.S. 1999. The influence of nematodes on below-ground processes in grassland ecosystems. Plant and Soil 212: 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bongers, T. 1990. The Maturity Index: an ecological measure of environmental disturbance based on nematode species composition. Oecologia 83:14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bongers, T. and Bongers, M. 1998. Functional diversity of nematodes. Applied Soil Ecology 10: 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bongers, T. and Ferris, H. 1999. Nematode community structure as a bioindicator in environmental monitoring. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14: 224–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, B.D. and Stafford Smith, D.M. 2000. A synthesis of recent global change research on pasture and rangeland production: reduced uncertainties and their management implications. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82: 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Goede, R.G.M. and Bongers, T. 1998. Nematode Commuities of Northern Temperate Grassland Ecosystems. Focus Verlag, Giessen.Google Scholar
  11. Drigo, B., Kowalchuk, G.A., Yergeau, E., Bezemer, T.M., Boschker, H.T.S. and vanVeen, J.A. 2007. Impact of elevated carbon dioxide on the rhisosphere communities of Carex arenaria and Festuca rubra. Global Change Biology 13: 2396–2410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drigo, B., Kowalchuk, G.A. and vanVeen, J.A. 2008. Climate change goes underground: effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on microbial community structure and activities in the rhisosphere. Biology and Fertility of Soils 44: 667–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferris, H., Bongers, T. and de Goede, R.G.M. 2001. A framework for soil food web diagnostics: extension of the nematode faunal analysis concept. Applied Soil Ecology 18: 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garland, J.L. and Mills A.L. 1991. Classification and characterization of heterotrophic microbial communities on the basis of patterns of community-level sole-carbon-source utilization. Applied Environmental Microbiology 57: 2351–2359.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoeksema, J.D., Lussenhop, J. and Teeri, J.A. 2000. Soil nematodes indicate food web responses to elevated atmospheric CO2. Pedobiologia 44:725–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hungate, B.A., Jaeger C.H., Gamara, G., Chapin, F.S. and Field, C.B. 2000. Soil microbiota in two annual grasslands: responses to elevated atmospheric CO2. Oecologia 124: 589–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Korthals, G.W., De Goede, R.G.M., Kammenga, J.E. and Bongers, T. 1996. The Maturity Index as an instrument for risk assessment of soil pollution. In: N.M. Van Straalen and D.A. Krivolutsky (eds.), Bioindicator Systems for Soil Pollution. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 85–94.Google Scholar
  18. Neher, D.A., Weicht, T.R., Moorhead, D.L. and Sinsabaugh, R.L. 2004. Elevated CO2 alters functional attributes of nematode communities in forest soils. Functional Ecology 18: 584–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Newton, P.C.D., Clark, H., Bell, C.C., Glasgow, E.M., Tate, K.R., Ross, D.J., Yeates, G.W. and Saggar, S. 1995. Plant growth and soil processes in temperate grassland communities at elevated CO2. Journal of Biogeography 22: 235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Niklaus, P.A., Alphei, J., Ebersberger, D., Kampichler, C., Kandeler, E. and Tscherko, D. 2003. Six years of in situ CO2 enrichment evoke changes in soil structure and soil biota of nutrient-poor grassland. Global Change Biology 9: 585–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Niklaus, P.A., Alphei, J., Kampichler, C., Kandeler, E., Körner, C., Tscherko, D. and Wohlfender, M. 2007. Interactive effects of plant species diversity and elevated CO2 on soil biota and nutrient cycling. Ecology 88: 3153–3163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pendall, E., Mosier, A.R. and Morgan, J.A. 2004a. Rhizodeposition stimulated by elevated CO2 in a semiarid grassland. New Phytologist 162: 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pendall, E., Bridgham, S., Hanson, P.J., Hungate, B., Kicklighter, D.W., Johnson, D.W., Law, B.E., Luo, Y.Q., Megonigal, J.P., Olsrud, M., Ryan, M.G. and Wan, S.Q. 2004b. Below-ground process responses to elevated CO2 and temperature:a discussion of observations, measurement methods, and models. New Phytologist 162: 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Podani, J. 2001. SYN-TAX 2000. Computer Program for Data Analysis in Ecology and Systematics. Scientia, Budapest.Google Scholar
  25. Seaby, R.M.H. and Henderson, P.A. 2006. Species Diversity and Richness 4.0. Pisces Conservation Ltd., IRC House, Pennington, Hampshire, UK.Google Scholar
  26. Smolik, J.D. and Dodd, J.L. 1983. Effect of water and nitrogen, and grazing on nematodes in a shortgrass prairie. Journal of Range Management 36: 744–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sonnemann, I. and Wolters, V. 2005. The microfoodweb of grassland soils responds to a moderate increase in atmospheric CO2. Global Change Biology 11: 1148–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Szerdahelyi, T., Nagy, J., Fóti, Sz., Czóbel, Sz., Balogh, J. and Tuba, Z. 2004. Botanical composition and some CO2 exchange characteristics of temperate semi-desert sand grassland in Hungary under present-day and elevated air CO2 concentrations. Ekologia (Bratislava) 22: 124–163.Google Scholar
  29. Todd, T.C., Blair, J.M. and Milliken, G.A. 1999. Effects of altered soil-water availability on a tallgrass prairie nematode community. Applied Soil Ecology 13: 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tuba, Z., Szente, K., Nagy, Z., Csintalan, Zs. and Koch, J. 1996. Responses of CO2 assimilation, transpiration and water use efficiency to long-term elevated CO2 in perennial C3 xeric loess steppe species. Journal of Plant Physiology 148: 356–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tuba, Z., Raschi, A., Lannini, G.M., Nagy, Z., Helyes, L., Vodnik, D. and di Toppi, L.S. 2003. Vegetations with various environmental constraints under elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations, In: L. Sanità di Toppi and B. Pawlik-Skowronska (eds.), Abiotic Stresses in Plants. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. pp. 157–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vahjen, W., Munch, J.-C. and Tebbe, C.C. 1995. Carbon source utilization of soil extracted microorganisms as a tool to detect the effects of soil supplemented with genetically engineered and non-engineered Corynebacterium glutamicum and a recombinant peptide at the community level. FEMS Microbial Ecology 18: 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vance, E.D., Brookes, P.C. and Jenkinson, D.S. 1987. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 19: 703–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Verschoor, B.C., de Goode, R.G.M., de Vries, F.W. and Brussaard, L. 2001. Changes in the composition of the plant-feeding nematode community in grasslands after cessation of fertilizer application. Applied Soil Ecology 17: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilsey, B.J. 2001. Effects of elevated CO2 on the response of Phleum pratense and Poa pratensis to aboveground defoliation and root-feeding nematodes. International Journal of Plant Science 162: 12–75–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wu, J., Joergensen, R.G., Pommerening, B., Chaussod, R. and Brookes, P.C. 1990. Measurement of soil microbial biomass by fumigation-extraction – an automated procedure. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 22: 1167–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yeates, G.W., Tate, K.R. and Newton, P.C.D. 1997. Response of the fauna of a grassland soil to doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Biology and Fertility of Soils 25: 307–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yeates, G.W., Newton, P.C.D. and Ross, D.J. 2003. Significant changes in soil microfauna in grazed pasture under elevated carbon dioxide. Biology and Fertility of Soils 38: 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zak, J.C., Willig, M.R., Moorhead, D.L. and Wildman, H.G 1994. Functional diversity of microbial communities: a quantitative approach. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 26: 1101–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zak, D.R., Pregitzer, K.S., King, J.S. and Holmes, W.E. 2000. Elevated atmospheric CO2, fine roots and the response of soil microorganisms: a review and hypothesis. New Phytologist 147: 201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zólyomi, B. and Fekete, G. 1994. The Pannonian loess steppe: differentiation in space and time. Abstracta Botanica 18: 29–41.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2008

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Nagy
    • 1
  • G. Bakonyi
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  • E. Péli
    • 2
  • I. Sonnemann
    • 3
  • Z. Tuba
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Zoology and Animal EcologySzent István UniversityGödöllõHungary
  2. 2.“Plant Ecology” Departmental Research Group of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesSzent István UniversityGödöllőHungary
  3. 3.Centre for Agri-Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy and DevelopmentThe University of ReadingReadingUK
  4. 4.Department of Botany and Plant Physiology, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental SciencesSzent István UniversityGödöllőHungary
  5. 5.Department of Zoology and Animal EcologySzent István UniversityGödöllőHungary

Personalised recommendations