Disentangling the effects of litter quantity and quality on soil biota structure and functioning: application to a cultivated soil in Northern France

(1)

HAL Id: hal-02739371

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02739371

Submitted on 2 Jun 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Disentangling the effects of litter quantity and quality

on soil biota structure and functioning: application to a

cultivated soil in Northern France

Marie Sauvadet, Matthieu Chauvat, Nicolas Fanin, Sékou Coulibaly, Isabelle

Bertrand

To cite this version:

Marie Sauvadet, Matthieu Chauvat, Nicolas Fanin, Sékou Coulibaly, Isabelle Bertrand. Disentangling the effects of litter quantity and quality on soil biota structure and functioning: application to a cul-tivated soil in Northern France. 5. International EcoSummit: Ecological Sustainability: Engineering Change, Aug 2016, Montpellier, France. �hal-02739371�

(2)

EcoSummit 2016

Montpellier, Aug-Sep 2016

Disentangling the effects of litter quantity and

quality on soil biota structure and functioning:

application to a cultivated soil in Northern France

M. Sauvadet

1 _{, M. Chauvat}

2 _{, N. Fanin}

1 _{, S. Coulibaly}

2 _{, I. Bertrand}

3 INRA UMR FARE, Reims; University of Rouen; UMR Eco&Sols, Montpellier

(3)

Impacts of cultural practices on soil biota

Soil functions:

- Respiration versus C

storage

- Nutrient recycling …

Soil organisms

Cultural practices

?

(4)

Crop residues  Main trophic resource for arable soil organisms

(Kim & Dale, 2004)

∆ quantity:

crop residues exportation / restitution

Adapt ed fr om H ol tkamp et al . (20 08 )

Litter

Microbial-feeders

Detritivores

↗ Microbial biomass

 Few information at the higher

trophic levels

(Spedding et al., 2004; Govaerts et al., 2007)

Litter quantity effects on soil food web

↗

litter quantity

Microorganisms

Microbial-feeders

Detritivores

Micro-organisms

Litter

(5)

Litter

0 0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

Maize leaves

Maize roots

Ch

a

nnel

Inde

x

Crop residues  Main trophic resource for arable soil organisms

(Kim & Dale, 2004)

∆ quality:

choice of the crop in the rotation

Litter

Bacteria

Bacterial-feeders

Fungal-feeders

Fungi

 Few information on fauna in cultivated soil

(Sauvadet et al., 2016)

Litter quality effects on soil food web

A da pted fr om H ol tkamp et al . (20 08 )

↗

litter quality

Bacteria

Bacterial-feeders

Fungal-feeders Fungi

(6)

Litter incorporation (0-15 cm) into 8 m² plots (4 blocks)

- Without litter

- 5 t.ha

-1

_Pea

- 10 t.ha

-1

_Pea

- 10 t.ha

-1

_Barley

Quantity effect

Quality effect

 Results presentation after 7 months

Material and methods

How can litter quantity and quality affect soil food web composition and

functions in cultivated soils?

Labile – high

quality litter

Recalcitrant –

low quality litter

(7)

Material and methods

Food web composition

(mg C . m

-2

₎

Nematodes

Total microorganisms & fungi

Macroarthropods

Baermann extraction

Collembola

Mites

Earthworms

www.rcsb.org

Food web functions

Microbial biomass C & Ergosterol

Soil corers 5 cm ø – 10 cm depth

Hand sorting

(soil cubes 25 cm x 25 cm x 25 cm)

Berlese-Tullgrenn extraction

Bulk soil 0 – 10 cm

Litter mass loss

Incorporated litterbags (8cm depth)

Soil N mineral content

Enzymatic activities

(Bell et al., 2013)

Bulk soil 0 – 10 cm

- C hydrolytic enzymes

- N hydrolytic enzymes

- Oxidative enzymes

(8)

Litter decomposition

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Pea

Barley

Lignin

Hemicellulose

Cellulose

Soluble fraction

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 %

initi

al

mas

s

ad

d

ed

Pea 1/2

Pea 1

Barley 1

Litter initial qualities

C/N ratio:

55 ± 0

C/N ratio:

101 ± 4

(9)

-125

-75

-25

25

75

125 % change by increasing litter quantity

-125

-75

-25

25

75

125 % change by increasing litter quality

-200

200

600 1000

1400

-200

200

600 1000

1400

Quantity effects: Pea

5 t.ha

-1

 10 t.ha

-1

Quality effects: Barley  Pea

10t.ha

-1

Quality – quantity effects on soil food web composition

Fungi

Bacterial-feeding nematodes

Fungal-feeding nematodes

Euedaphic collembola

Hemiedaphic collembola

Epedaphic collembola

Anecic earthworms

(10)

Quantity effects: 5 t.ha

-1

 10 t.ha

-1

Quality effects: Barley  Pea

10 t.ha

-1

Quality – quantity effects on soil food web functions

Enzymatic C:N ratio

Oxydative enzymes

N hydrolytic enzymes

C hydrolytic enzymes

mg.m

-

_{² litter degraded}

0

100

200

300

0

100

200

300 -40

-20

0

20

40 % change by increasing litter quantity

-40

-20

0

20

40 % change by increasing litter quality

(11)

Linking soil food web composition and functions

5 t.ha

-1

_Pea

_{10 t.ha}

-1

_Pea

_{10 t.ha}

-1

_Barley

-2

-1

0

1

2 -0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5 RDA1: 52.5%

RDA2:

19.2%

Oxidative Soil N mineral Fungi B-f . nem F-f .nem Eu.coll Hem .coll Epe.coll Anecic litter degraded N hydrolytic C hydrolytic

(12)

Conclusions

↗ Litter quantity

↗ Litter quality

↘ fungal : bacterial pathway

6 groups impacted

Amplitude change ≈ 85%

↗ detritivores size

3 groups impacted

Amplitude change ≈ 385%

↘ N enzymatic demand from biota

↗ amount of litter degraded by

biota

Long term impact on soil C?

Possibility to use litter addition in specific quantity and/or quality to favor one

specific ecosystem service or restore one specific functional group?

Selection of biota with different N

acquisition strategy?

(13)

Projet SOFIA

Projet SOFIA (Soil Functional diversity as an indicator of sustainable

management of Agroecosystems)

Million S. & F., Alavoine G., Thiébeau P., Delfosse O., Habrant A., Portelette A., Chiter K.,