Earth System Science and Environmental Management (ESSEM) Domain
“Why a COST Action on soil fauna and
SOM dynamics?
Current status and future challenges”
Pyrenean Institute of Ecology (IPE-CSIC) Spain
COST is supported by the EU Framework Programme Horizon 2020
Coimbra, 4-7 October 2016
Juan J. Jiménez
1st Training School
COST Action ES1406
www.keysom.eu
With contributions from Juliane Filser, Patrick lavelle, Sébastien Barot and many others
Earth System Science and Environmental Management (ESSEM) Domain
COST Action ES1406
“Soil fauna: key to soil organic matter dynamics and
modelling (KEYSOM)”
1 Pyrenean Institute of Ecology (IPE-CSIC) Spain
COST is supported by the EU Framework Programme Horizon 2020
Juan J. Jiménez1 (Chair) Juliane Filser2 (Vice chair)
…and MC members
2 Center for Environmental Research and
Sustainable Technology
www.keysom.eu
Participating countries list (as per September 2016)
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Common experimentation
and testing
Including Italy and Finland
23 Countries
Country Date
Austria 15/12/2014
Belgium 17/04/2015
Bulgaria 06/08/2015
Croatia 20/02/2015
Czech Republic 14/01/2015
Denmark 15/07/2015
Estonia 09/02/2015
France 26/01/2015
Germany 05/12/2014
Greece 08/05/2015
Ireland 10/12/2014
Italy 06/06/2016
Lithuania 22/12/2014
Netherlands 05/02/2015
Norway 29/01/2015
Poland 12/12/2014
Portugal 03/02/2015
Romania 15/01/2015
Serbia 21/10/2015
Slovenia 08/04/2016
Spain 24/11/2014
Switzerland 18/05/2015
United Kingdom 14/10/2015
OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS
To implement the role of soil fauna into existing SOM models for land use and
natural resource management.
A set of recommended agricultural practices for reducing depletion of SOM and
beneficial soil fauna will be promoted.
Benefits:
(1) network of experts in biogeosciences, soil ecology, SOM turnover, microbiology,
nutrient dynamics (N, P cycles), and modelling across Europe
(2) knowledge gaps analysis and conceptual framework development for guiding future
research;
(3) training to the next generation of researchers;
(4) European perspective emphasis within global research network, and
(5) Supportive decision-making policies at local, regional and international levels.
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Working groups and tasks
WG 4 (Prof. Paulo Sousa) Dissemination of results from analyses, knowledge management and material for training and stakeholder purposes;
Gender balance achieved
WG1 (Prof. Juliane Filser) Data sharing and information, state-of-the-art and gap analysis of SOM – soil fauna interactions;
WG2 (Dr. Sébastien Barot) Review existing global SOM models and analysis of their potentials and limitations for inclusion of soil fauna effects;
WG 3 (Dr. Davorka Hackenberg) Assembling data from the different sites (studies) in a meta-database for further extensive analyses;
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
• Great paper on models
• But role of soil fauna in the process totally overlooked, once again!
• Soil ecology researchers reacted to this (ICSZ Coimbra 2012)
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
????
Juliane Filser
“The Architect Forgot the Engineers ICSZ„
Coimbra, August 2012
Existing Models on SOM Turnover
PF
C
HS
SOM
Turnover
Molecular structure
Physical
heterogeneity
Humic
substances
Fire-
derived C
Soil depth
Roots
Permafrost
Main elements
State-of-the-art (Schmidt et al. 2011)
Soil fauna totally
ignored!
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Soil micro-
organisms
Let us reconcile… • In the end of the article, the authors state:
Join forces and connect research communities “(…) There are those studying litter decomposition, with a focus on the biotic breakdown of plant inputs (…)„
So, what can WE do about it?
Interestingly, none of the 46 papers citing this
article (by August 8, 2012) focused on soil fauna!
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Juliane Filser
“The Architect Forgot the Engineers ICSZ„
Coimbra, August 2012
Rationale (I)
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
• Soil ecologists: two rather different ways to explain processes: “food-web vs. self-organization”.
• Soil animals (biodiversity and species traits) play a crucial role in SOM turnover (although not sufficiently acknowledged).
• Without them, models seem to be less predictive*;
• Interdisciplinary approaches needed to better understand and model SOM (in agreement with Schmidt et al. paper)
• Limited communication (linkages) between biogeochemistry, microbiology and soil ecology;
• Lack of [awareness of] data on soil animals (both field and lab experiments),
* We argue that explicit consideration of soil animals is essential to make realistic modelling predictions and detect expected non-linear responses to Global Change
Rationale (II)
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Various forms & age
CO2
Litter
Soil
Organic carbon
Shoots
Roots
Soil biota
Exudates
Respiration
Photosynthesis
C-in C-out
leaching
C- sequestration
C in C out >
erosion
De Deyn (2013)
- Biological transformation of SOM
- Stabilization of SOM in organo-mineral complexes (Δ turnover rates)
- Biogeochemical SOM models oversimplify soil community (or reduced to microbial component)
- Soil fauna role in SOM dynamics (soil ecologists) mainly based in food-webs; Who eats who, who feeds upon who?
- The situation becomes perpetual.
Understanding and modelling SOM dynamics is essential for managing soil fertility, agricultural productivity and soil ecosystem services like nutrient cycling and C sequestration.
Contribution of soil fauna to 8 aspects considered
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Molecular structure
HS Humic substances
Role of faunal casts and excreta in dynamics/turnover of humic substances and biogenic elements;
C Fire-derived C Fate and re-distribution;
Roots Effects of animal burrows, root herbivores, rhizosphere grazers;
Physical
heterogeneity
Casts, mounds and burrows produced by soil ecosystem engineers (including soil fauna and roots) affecting vertical and horizontal organic matter patterns in soil;
Soil depth Distribution of old and young C through fauna (accessibility vs. recalcitrance of SOM to microbial attack and C sequestration);
PF Permafrost Short- and long-term invasion effects by soil fauna (e.g. enchytraeids and earthworms);
Soil micro-organisms Gut passage, modification of environmental conditions, and distribution of microbial propagules (promotion of coexistence of different microbial species)
Juliane Filser, Gerlinde De Deyn, Jack H. Faber, Lijbert Brussaard, Diana H. Wall, Alexei V. Uvarov, Matty P. Berg, Patrick Lavelle, Michel Loreau, Alexei V. Tiunov, Jan
Frouz, Pascal Querner, Herman Eijsackers, Juan J. Jiménez. SOIL (accepted).
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
(…)
State of the art
Juliane Filser, Gerlinde De Deyn, Jack H. Faber, Lijbert Brussaard, Diana H. Wall, Alexei V.
Uvarov, Matty P. Berg, Patrick Lavelle, Michel Loreau, Alexei V. Tiunov, Jan Frouz, Pascal
Querner, Herman Eijsackers, Juan J. Jiménez. SOIL (OA journal, accepted).
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Juliane Filser, Gerlinde De Deyn, Jack H. Faber, Lijbert Brussaard, Diana H. Wall, Alexei V.
Uvarov, Matty P. Berg, Patrick Lavelle, Michel Loreau, Alexei V. Tiunov, Jan Frouz, Pascal
Querner, Herman Eijsackers, Juan J. Jiménez. SOIL (OA journal, accepted).
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
A few challenges ……
Literature Review and Gap Analysis • How animal groups should be represented • Geographical differences, site-specific effects • Data
– Laboratory vs. field (e.g. Lubbers et al. 2013) – Scale
• How to cope with – different methods, foci? – the huge complexity?
• How much detail is needed?
Impact of one lab species on GHG release
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Challenges (cont’d)
I. Biodiversity in soils II. Soil fauna – SOM Interactions III. Spatial and temporal patterns
(Bardgett and van der Putten, 2014)
Life in the soil
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
We still do not know how many soil invertebrate species exist worldwide, and there is
almost no soil where we are able to identify or even quantify all the resident invertebrate
species
www.prairieecosystems.pbworks.
com
Main taxonomic groups of soil organisms on body size basis
(Decaëns, Lavelle & Jiménez 2008, after Swift et al. 1979)
1024
m m
1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512
mm
Bacteria
Fungi
Nematoda
Protozoa
Acari
Collembola
Diplura
Symphyla
Enchytraeidae
Isoptera / Formicoidea
Diptera
Isopoda
Myriapoda
Arachnida
Coleoptera
Mollusca
Oligochaeta
Vertebrata
Microflora / microfauna Mesofauna Macro - and megafauna
100 m m 2 mm 20 mm
Body size
Life in the soil
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
MACROFAUNA (> 2mm): 17 KEY taxa
Taxa Biomass (%)
Density (%)
Oligochaeta opisthopora1 74.43 9.85
Coleoptera (larvae and adults)2
6.89 3.32
Isoptera3 6.30 49.15
Myriapoda (Diplopoda4 and Chilopoda5)
5.23 3.27
Formicidae6 2.65 29.28
Gasteropoda7 1.30 0.49
Aranaea8 1.00 1.17
Blattoidea9 0.64 0.19
Orthoptera10 0.38 0.08
Dermaptera11 0.27 0.51
Isopoda12 0.26 0.96
Hemiptera13 0.22 0.13
Lepidoptera (larvas)14 0.21 0.20
Diptera (larvas y adultos)15
0.17 0.39
Residues (Insects16 and non-insects17)
1.26 1.00
IBOY-Macrofauna report, 2000 http://www.bondy.ird.fr/lest/iboy/workshop-report.pdf)
>95%
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
(Decaëns et al. 2008)
Lavelle et al., unpubl.
Life in the soil
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Models on soil fauna and SOM interactions?
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
direct pathway to plants indirect pathway to plants
Trophic based below- and aboveground interactions
root feeding fauna
mycorrhiza
pathogens
belowground
aboveground
(Wardle et al. 2004; Osler and Sommerkorn 2007)
food web
- Significant effects on nutrient pools and fluxes - Integration of biogeochemical and soil food web
models - Protists and bacteria-feeding nematodes important
for N mineralization - Enchytraeids and fungal-feeding micro-arthropods
important for DOM production
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Focus: Element fluxes
Non-trophic interactions: Soil ecosystem engineering
Ecosystem engineers (sensu Jones et al. 1994)
© P. Lavelle
© J.J. Jiménez
(Decaëns et al. 2008)
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Focus: Habitat structure / physical conditions
OM
Aggregates
Which conceptual model to be proposed?
De Ruiter et al. (1994)
NOT a single one, accepted by all of us CAN WE PROPOSE A SIMPLE AND OPERATIONAL MODEL
FOODWEBS SELF-ORGANIZED SOIL
Short sighted Allows precise modeling Ignores soil (structure)
Long sighted No modeling done so far
Lavelle et al., 2006
M i cr o o r ga n i sm s
M i cr o f o o dw e b
F u n cti o n a l do m a i n
S o i l pr o f i l e
B i o ge n i c str u ctu r e s
M e so - a ggr e ga te s
M i cr o bi a l a ggr e ga te s
M o sa i c o f f u n cti o n a l do m a i n s
4
5
3
1
S o i l ca te n a
L a n dsca pe
2
A theoretical attempt by Sanders et al. (2014)
A huge quantity of empirical data
The impact of soil fauna on the dynamics of dead organic
matter has been studied for ages
Many many mechanisms are involved (comminution, bioturbation, …. )
Several spatial scales are involved (processes may vary)
Several temporal scales are involved
Yes but …
Many organisms are involved
Many compartments of organic matter are involved
Challenges on modelling SOM – soil fauna
(Barot et al., in prep.)
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Diffuse reflectance (Stenberg et al. 2010)
NIR spectral readings
A. rosea
1 day-old
L. friendi
1 day-old
P. pyrenaicus
1 day-old
Spectral data of recently deposited casts for 3 earthworm species (reference library data)
PLS-DA model
RMSECV*: 0.437
*Root mean square error of cross validation = prediction ability calculated by the model based on the NIR spectral data of the reference library (accuracy and robustness)
(Jiménez et al., in prep.)
Role of soil engineers in C models?
Example with earthworms
Litter fragmentation and
distribution within
the soil profile
SOM
Digestion of a fraction
of the ingested SOM Stimulation
of some
micro-organisms
CO2 CO2
Digestion of a fraction
of the ingested
micro-organisms
Protection of SOM
within soil aggregates ?
Positive
effect
on plant
growth
Feedbacks on
organic matter
inputs
(Barot et al., in prep.)
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Towards a generic model
The model must incorporate the most important processes
controlled by soil fauna
The model relatively simple to allow mathematical analyses
The model to be used for any group of soil fauna or combination
of soil fauna groups (guilds, functional groups)
Litter fragmentation
Bioturbation
Consumption of SOM and stimulation of microorganisms
Protection of SOM in casts / pellets
(Barot et al., in prep.)
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Towards a generic model
Litter fragmentation
(Barot et al. in prep.)
Ab
ove
gro
un
d
Be
low
gro
un
d
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Preliminary results
111
f btot
f f b S
S Rm m
Total stock of C without fauna
Total stock of C with fauna achieving all functions
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
en
f an b ep an f f
tot
ep an f f an b en oc
an b ep a
ep ep an an
yc
yc
e
ep an
ep e
n
n fp an a f
S en
e
n
n oc
m E E E
a aS R
E E m E
f f
f f
f
E m w
E E E
a wam E
E m
b
b c
m
b
wc
f
mc
Simple model (Barot et al. in prep.)
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
(Deckym et al. in prep.)
A basic submodel for soil biodiversity into existing ecosystem and soil models + implement example soil model (ie adaptable to most ecosystems) of soil C and N (i.e. C storage and fertility (N availability) as main outputs).
Engineers: influence beyond foodweb, others more through foodweb
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Next steps
Mathematical analysis of the results
E.g.
Derivatives relatively to biomasses of soil fauna
Mathematical conditions for soil fauna to increase the total
C stock
Parameterization, probably using “mean standard parameters”
Inclusion of new mechanisms
Feedbacks between soil fauna dynamics and SOM dynamics
Explicit inclusion of microorganisms (bacteria and fungi)
Possibility of concentration of organic matter within casts / pellets
(Barot et al. in prep.)
• Soil fauna is impacted by global change which will impact
organic matter dynamics
Challenges (III)
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
(Decaëns et al. 2009; Jiménez et al. 2012)
Number of inds. found in each variable (range)
C0-5
0-25 25-50 >50 N
Glo 9 819 18 846
Aym 0 630 18 648
And 18 288 0 306
Epi 0 477 477 954
Anr 0 9 0 9
Ocn 36 2313 54 2403
Mrt 9 972 45 1026
C5-10
0-15 15-30 30-45 >45 >60
0 819 27 0 0
0 585 18 45 0
9 297 0 0 0
477 477 0 0 0
0 9 0 0 0
36 2331 18 18 0
9 963 45 9 0
BD
0.7-1.0 1.0-1.2 1.2-1.4 >1.4
0 225 549 72
0 315 333 0
0 45 216 45
513 27 414 0
0 9 0 0
18 513 1827 45
9 225 783 9
PR2.5
0-1 1-3 3-5 5-7 >7
315 18 9 261 243
495 0 18 108 27
72 72 18 90 54
180 9 36 720 9
9 0 0 0 0
936 153 81 783 450
594 36 9 288 99
Trophic (nutrients) Space (physical)
Spp
./
asse
mb
lage
s
How species and assemblages relate with soil abiotic
factors at multiple scales?
And how do they affect their surrounding environment?
Use of trophic and space resources
(Jiménez et al. 2014)
Spatial distribution of resources (fine and coarse roots)
(m sample-1) (g dry wt sample-1)
Cross-correlogram for roots and soil nutrient- and physical-related variables:
FiRL with SOC and P
CoRL with N, SOC and P
FiRW with SOC and P and litter
CoRW with SOC, P
FiRL with Aggregates, Cond and Moisture
CoRL with Aggregates and Cond
FiRW with Aggregates and BD
CoRW with Aggregates
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Glossodrilus
Aymara Andiodrilus
Andiorrhinus
Ocnerodrilidae Martiodrilus
Litter
N0-5
N5-10
P0-5
P5-10
C0-5
C5-10
C:N 0-5
C:N5-10
FiRL
CoRL
FiRW
CoRW
PR5-20
0.053-
0.125
0.125-0.25 0.25-0.5
0.5-1
1-2
2-5
5-10
>10Agg
Bulk
Density
Soil compaction
Cond
Hum(%)
-0.43
0.36 -0.36 0.3
F I (64.1%)
F II (1
7.7
%)
p<0.0001
MedAgg
SmallAgg
LargeAgg
VLargeAgg
VSmallAgg Root Length
Root Biomass
Montecarlo rand.
Co-Inertia analysis
(Jiménez et al. 2012)
Correlogram with the factorial coordinates of axis 1 (square) and
axis 2 (triangle) extracted in the CoIA M
ora
n's
I
2 7 11 16 20 25 30 34 39 43 48 52
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Lag distance (m)
Axis 2
Axis 1
Ew effect
Nutrient resources
Species 1
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
En
do
gei
cs
ass
emb
lage
Eart
hw
orm
com
mu
nit
y
Intersampling
distance = 10 m
Ep
igeic +
an
ecic
assem
bla
ge
An
dio
dri
lus,
Aym
ara
an
d n
ew
gen
us
1 a
ssem
bla
ge
Martio
drilu
s,
Glo
ssodrilu
sa
nd
new
gen
us 2
assem
bla
ge
(Jiménez et al. 2014)
Variation partitioning in a spatial context
10 20 30 40 50 60
0.0
02
0.0
06
0
.01
0
0.0
14
Distance (m)
Sem
ivar
ian
ce
PCNM1
PCNM3
PCNM5
PCNM8
PCNM12
PCNM33
PCNM51
Principal Component of Neighbouring Matrices (Dray et al. 2006) and
Variation partitioning (Borcard et al. 1992; Peres-Neto et al. 2006)
Multi-scale spatial relationships
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
SOM – soil fauna interaction
must also be integrated into a
holistic view of ecosystem
functioning
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
ESSEM COST Action ES1406
Thanks for your attention!
Enjoy this training school!
http://www.cost.eu/COST_Actions/essem/Actions/ES1406
COST is supported by the EU Framework Programme Horizon 2020
© F. Fillat
www.keysom.eu Follow us on Social Media
@KeysomAction