Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T18:40:42.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Trophic structure and functional redundancy in soil communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2009

By
Heikki Setälä ,
Matty P. Berg  and
T. Hefin Jones
Edited by
Richard Bardgett ,
Michael Usher  and
David Hopkins
Heikki Setälä
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Matty P. Berg
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit
T. Hefin Jones
Affiliation:
Cardiff University
Richard Bardgett
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
Michael Usher
Affiliation:
University of Stirling
David Hopkins
Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Get access

Summary

SUMMARY

  1. Empirical and theoretical evidence suggests that the rate and magnitude of below-ground ecosystem processes depend on the architecture of the detrital food web. Although some species have an indisputable keystone role in determining soil processes, there is little evidence suggesting that species diversity per se has any major influence at a system level.

  2. We review studies that shed light on the degree of functional redundancy in decomposer food webs – from microbes to soil fauna. As well as emphasising the need to define accurately functional redundancy (using both ‘Hutchinsonian ecological niche’ and ‘functional niche’ concepts), we also focus on features specific to soils and their communities that may affect the levels at which functional redundancy exists in detrital food webs.

  3. We also explore the levels of ecological hierarchy (from species to trophic levels) at which diversity differences manifest themselves as altered ecosystem-level processes.

  4. We conclude that the high degree of generalism – even omnivory – in resource-use among decomposer organisms, and the highly heterogeneous environment of soil organisms (reducing competition between species, thus allowing taxa with similar feeding preferences/environmental tolerances to co-exist), play major roles in explaining the high degree of functional complementarity found in decomposer communities.

Introduction

The accelerating loss of biodiversity in various global ecosystems (Lawton & May 1995; Lawton 2000; Schmid et al. 2002) and recent findings emphasising the close linkage between the above- and below-ground components of ecosystems (Wardle 2002) have led many ecologists to direct their interest to soil ecology and processes.

Type
Chapter
Information
Biological Diversity and Function in Soils , pp. 236 - 249
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrahamson, G. (1990). Influence of Cognettia sphagnetorum (Oligochaeta, Enchytraeidae) on nitrogen mineralization in homogenized mor humus. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 9, 159–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alphei, J., Bonkowski, M. & Scheu, S. (1996). Protozoa, Nematoda and Lumbricidae in the rhizosphere of Hordelymus europaeus (Poaceae): faunal interactions, response of microorganisms and effects on plant growth. Oecologia, 106, 111–126CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J. M. (1978). Inter- and intra-habitat relationships between woodland Cryptostigmata species diversity and the diversity of soil and litter microhabitats. Oecologia, 32, 341–348CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrén, O., Bengtsson, J. & Clarholm, M. (1995). Biodiversity and species redundancy among litter decomposers. The Significance and Regulation of Soil Biodiversity (Ed. by , H. P. Collins), pp. 141–151. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Bardgett, R. D., Wardle, D. A. & Yeates, G. W. (1998). Linking above-ground and below-ground interactions: how plant responses to foliar herbivory influence soil organisms. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 30, 1867–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, T. (1982). Predation by a carabid beetle specialized for catching Collembola. Pedobiologia, 24, 169–179Google Scholar
Beare, M. H., Coleman, D. C., Crossley, D. A. Jr., Hendrix, P. F. & Odum, E. P. (1995). A hierarchical approach to evaluating the significance of soil biodiversity to biogeochemical cycling. Plant and Soil, 170, 5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begon, M., Harper, J. L. & Townsend, C. R. (1990). Ecology: Individuals, Populations, and Communities, 2nd edition. London: Blackwell Scientific
Berg, M. P., Kniese, J. P. & Verhoef, H. A. (1998a). Dynamics and stratification of bacteria and fungi in the organic layers of a Scots pine forest soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 26, 313–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, M. P., Kniese, J. P., Bedaux, J. J. M. & Verhoef, H. A. (1998b). Dynamics and stratification of functional groups of micro- and mesoarthropods in the organic layer of a Scots pine forest. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 26, 268–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, M. P., Ruiter, P. C., Didden, W. A. M., et al. (2001). Community food web, decomposition and nitrogen mineralisation in a stratified Scots pine forest soil. Oikos, 94, 130–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, M. P. & Stoffer, M. (in press). Feeding guilds in Collembola based on digestive enzymes. Pedobiologia, submitted
Bolger, T. (2001). The functional value of species biodiversity: a review. Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 101B, 199–224Google Scholar
Bonkowski, M., Geoghegan, I. E., Birch, A. N. E. & Griffiths, B. S. (2001). Effects of soil decomposer invertebrates (protozoa and earthworms) on an above-ground phytophagous insect (cereal aphid) mediated through changes in the host plant. Oikos, 95, 441–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, M. A., Jones, T. H., Bardgett, R. D., et al. (2002). Impacts of soil faunal community composition on model grassland ecosystems. Science, 298, 615–618CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapin, F. S., III & Körner, C. (1996). Arctic and alpine biodiversity: its patterns, causes and ecosystem consequences. Functional Roles of Biodiversity: A Global Perspective (Ed. by , H. A. Mooney, , J. H. Cushman, , E. Medina, , O. E. Sala & , E.-D. Schulze), pp. 7–32. Chichester: SCOPE/WileyGoogle Scholar
Coleman, D. C. (1996). Energetics of detritivory and microbivory in soil in theory and practice. Food Webs: Integration of Patterns and Dynamics (Ed. by , G. A. Polis & , K. O. Winemiller), pp. 39–50. New York: Chapman and HallGoogle Scholar
Coleman, D. C. & Crossley, D. A. Jr. (1996). Fundamentals of Soil Ecology. San Diego: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Coleman, D. C., Reid, C. P. P. & Cole, C. V. (1983). Biological strategies of nutrient cycling in soil systems. Advances in Ecological Research, 13, 1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowling, R. M., Mustart, P. J., Laurie, H. & Richards, M. B. (1994). Species diversity: functional diversity and functional redundancy in fynbos communities. South African Journal of Science, 90, 333–337Google Scholar
Cragg, R. G. & Bardgett, R. D. (2001). How changes in soil faunal diversity and composition within a trophic group influence decomposition processes. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 33, 2073–2081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Didden, W. A. M. (1993). Ecology of terrestrial Enchytraeidae. Pedobiologia, 37, 2–29Google Scholar
Didden, W. A. M. & Fluiter, R. (1998). Dynamics and stratification of Enchytraeidae in the organic layer of a Scots pine forest. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 26, 305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edsberg, E. (2000). The quantitative influence of Enchytraeids (Oligochaeta) and microarthropods on decomposition of coniferous raw humus in microcosms. Pediobiologia, 44, 132–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggers, T. & Jones, T. H. (2000). You are what you eat … or are you?Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15, 265–266CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekschmitt, K., Klein, A., Pieper, B. & Wolters, V. (2001). Biodiversity and functioning of ecological communities: why is diversity important in some cases and unimportant in others?Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 164, 239–2463.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ettema, C. H. (1998). Soil nematode diversity: species coexistence and ecosystem function. Journal of Nematology, 30, 159–170Google ScholarPubMed
Faber, J. H. (1991). Functional classification of soil fauna: a new approach. Oikos, 62, 110–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, J. H. & Verhoef, H. A. (1991). Functional differences between closely-related soil arthropods with respect to decomposition processes in the presence or absence of pine tree roots. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 23, 15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filser, J. & Setälä, H. (1999). Recent advances in decomposer food web ecology. Perspectives in Ecology. A Glance from the VIIINTECOL Congress of Ecology, Florence, Italy (Ed. by , A. Farina), pp. 355–368. Leiden: BackhuysGoogle Scholar
Frost, T. M., Carpenter, S. R., Ives, A. R. & Kratz, T. K. (1995). Species compensation and complementarity in ecosystem function. Linking Species and Ecosystems (Ed. by , C. G. Jones & , J. H. Lawton), pp. 224–239. San Diego, CA: Chapman and HallGoogle Scholar
Ghilarov, M. S. (1977). Why so many individuals can exist in the soil?Ecological Bulletins, 25, 593–597Google Scholar
Giller, P. S. (1996). The diversity of soil communities, the poor man's tropical rainforest. Biodiversity and Conservation, 5, 135–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giller, K. E., Beare, M. H., Lavelle, P., Izac, A.-M. N. & Swift, M. J. (1997). Agricultural intensification, soil biodiversity and agroecosystem function. Applied Soil Ecology, 6, 3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, B. S., Ritz, K., Bardgett, R. D., et al. (2000). Ecosystem response of pasture soil communities to fumigation-induced microbial diversity reductions: an examination of the biodiversity–ecosystem function relationship. Oikos, 90, 279–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, B. S., Ritz, K., Wheatley, R., et al. (2001). An examination of the biodiversity–ecosystem function relationship in arable soil microbial communities. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 33, 1713–1722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groffman, P. M. & Bohlen, P. J. (1999). Soil and sediment biodiversity. BioScience, 49, 139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hector, A., Schmid, B., Beierkuhnlein, C., et al. (1999). Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grasslands. Science, 286, 1123–1127CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedlund, K. & , Sjögren-Öhrn M. (2000). Tritrophic interactions in a soil community enhance decomposition rates. Oikos, 88, 585–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedlund, K., Bengtsson, G. & Rundgren, S. (1995). Fungal odour discrimination in two sympatric species of fungivorous collembolans. Functional Ecology, 9, 869–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhta, V., Persson, T. & Setälä, H. (1998). Functional implications of soil fauna diversity in boreal forests. Applied Soil Ecology, 10, 277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G. E. (1957). Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbour Symposium on Quantitative Biology, 22, 415–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, E. R., Coleman, D. C. & Moore, J. C. (1989). An analysis of food web structure and function in a shortgrass prairie, a mountain meadow, and a lodgepole pine forest. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 8, 29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, R. E., Trofymow, J. A., Ingham, E. R. & Coleman, D. C. (1985). Interactions of bacteria, fungi, and their nematode grazers: effects on nutrient cycling and plant growth. Ecological Monographs, 55, 119–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. G. & Lawton J. H. (1995). Linking Species and Ecosystems. New York: Chapman and Hall
Klironomos, J. N. & Kendrick, W. B. (1996). Palatability of microfungi to soil arthropods in relation to the functioning of arbuscular mycorrhizae. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 21, 43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehler, H. H. (1997). Mesostigmata (Gamasina, Uropodina), efficient predators in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 62, 105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laakso, J. & Setälä, H. (1999a). Sensitivity of primary production to changes in the architecture of belowground food webs. Oikos, 87, 57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laakso, J. & Setälä, H. (1999b). Population- and ecosystem-level effects of predation on microbial-feeding nematodes. Oecologia, 120, 279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laakso, J., Setälä, H. & Palojärvi, A. (2000). Control of primary production by decomposer food web structure in relation to nitrogen availability. Plant and Soil, 225, 153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, J. H. (2000). Community Ecology in a Changing World: Excellence in Ecology. Oldendorf: Ecology Institute
Lawton, J. H. & May, R. M. (1995). Extinction Rates. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Liiri, M., Setälä, H., Haimi, J., Pennanen, T. & Fritze, H. (2002). Relationship between soil microarthropod species diversity and plant growth does not change when the system is disturbed. Oikos, 96, 137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, R. H. (1955). Fluctuations of animal populations and a measure of community stability. Ecology, 36, 533–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maraun, M., Martens, H., Migge, S., Theenhaus, A. & Scheu, S. (2003). Adding to ‘the enigma of soil animal diversity’: fungal feeders and saprophagous soil invertebrates prefer similar food substrates. European Journal of Soil Science, 39, 85–95Google Scholar
Mebes, K.-H. & Filser, J. (1998). A method for estimating the significance of surface dispersal for population fluctuations of Collembola in arable land. Pedobiologia, 41, 115–122Google Scholar
Mikola, J. & Setälä, H. (1998). Relating species diversity to ecosystem functioning: mechanistic backgrounds and experimental approach with a decomposer food web. Oikos, 83, 180–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikola, J., Bardgett, R. D. & Hedlund, K. (2002). Biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and soil decomposer food webs. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: A Current Synthesis (Ed. by , M. Loreau, , S. Naeem & , P. Inchausti), pp. 169–180. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. C. & de Ruiter, P. C. (1997). Compartmentalization of resource utilization within soil ecosystems. Multitrophic Interactions in Terrestrial Systems (Ed. by , A. C. Gange & , V. K. Brown), pp. 375–393. London: Blackwell ScienceGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. C. & Hunt, H. W. (1988). Resource compartmentation and the stability of real ecosystems. Nature, 333, 261–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, P. J. (1995). Functional redundancy, non-additive interactions, and supply-side dynamics in experimental pond communities. Ecology, 76, 133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naeem, S. & Li, S. (1997). Biodiversity enhances ecosystem reliability. Nature, 390, 507–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naeem, S., Thompson, L. J., Lawler, S. P., Lawton, J. H. & Woodfin, R. M. (1994). Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature, 368, 734–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, K. (1984a). Interaction between two decomposer basidiomycetes and a collembolan under Sitka spruce: grazing and its potential effects on fungal distribution and litter decomposition. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 16, 235–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, K. (1984b). Interaction between two decomposer basidiomycetes and a collembolan under Sitka spruce: distribution, abundance and selective grazing. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 16, 227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponge, J. F. (1991). Succession of fungi and fauna during decomposition of needles in a small area of Scots pine litter. Plant and Soil, 138, 99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, C. H., Dighton, J., Frankland, J. C. & Coward, P. A. (1993). Nutrient and carbon dioxide release by interacting species of straw-decomposing fungi. Plant and Soil, 151, 139–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. (2002). Functional redundancy in ecology and conservation. Oikos, 98, 156–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satchell, J. E. & Lowe, D. G. (1967). Selection of leaf litter by L. terrestris. Progress in Soil Biology (Ed. by , O. Graff & , J. E. Satchell), pp. 102–128. Amsterdam: North-HollandGoogle Scholar
Scheu, S. & Falca, M. (2000). The soil food web of two beech forests (Fagus sylvatica) of contrasting humus type: stable isotope analysis of a macro- and a mesofauna-dominated community. Oecologia, 123, 285–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheu, S. & Setälä, H. (2002). Multitrophic interactions in decomposer food webs. Multitrophic Interactions in Terrestrial Systems (Ed. by , T. Tscharntke & , B. A. Hawkins), pp. 223–264. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Schmid, B., Joshi, J. & Schläpfer, F. (2002). Empirical evidence for biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships. Functional Consequences of Biodiversity: Experimental Progress and Theoretical Extensions (Ed. by , A. Kinzig, , S. Pacala & , D. Tilman), pp. 120–150. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Setälä, H. (2000). Reciprocal interactions between Scots pine and soil food web structure in the presence and absence of ectomycorrhiza. Oecologia, 125, 109–118CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Setälä, H. & Huhta, V. (1991). Soil fauna increase Betula pendula growth: laboratory experiments with coniferous forest floor. Ecology, 72, 665–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setälä, H. & McLean, M. A. (2004). Decomposition rate of organic substrates in relation to the species diversity of soil saprophytic fungi. Oecologia, 139, 98–107CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shachak, M., Jones, C. G. & Granot, Y. (1987). Herbivory in rocks and the weathering of a desert. Science, 236, 1098–1099CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siepel, H. & Ruiter-Dijkman, E. M. (1993). Feeding guilds of oribatid mites based on their carbohydrase activities. Soil Biology Biochemistry, 25, 1491–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solbrig, O. T. (1991). From Genes to Ecosystems: A Research Agenda for Biodiversity. Cambridge, MA: IUBS/SCOPE/UNESCO
Srivastava, D. S. (2002). The role of conservation in expanding biodiversity research. Oikos, 98, 351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swift, M. J., Heal, O. W. & Anderson J. M. (1979). Decomposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Oxford: Blackwell
Swift, M. J., Andrén, O., Brussaard, L., et al. (1998). Global change, soil biodiversity, and nitrogen cycling in terrestrial ecosystems: three case studies. Global Change Biology, 4, 729–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D. (1999). The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology, 80, 1455–1474Google Scholar
Tilman, D., Wedin, D. & Knops, J. (1996). Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature, 379, 718–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usher, M. B. & Parr, T. (1977). Are there successional changes in arthropod decomposer communities?Journal of Environmental Management, 5, 151–160Google Scholar
Usher, M. B., Davis, P., Harris, J. & Longstaff, B. (1979). A profusion of species? Approaches towards understanding the dynamics of the populations of microarthropods in decomposer communities. Population Dynamics (Ed. by , R. M. Anderson, , B. D. Turner & , L. R. Taylor), pp. 359–384. Oxford: Blackwell ScientificGoogle Scholar
Verhoef, H. A., Prast, J. E. & Verweij, R. A. (1988). Relative importance of fungi and algae in the diet of Orchesella cincta (L.) and Tomocerus minor (Lubbock). Functional Ecology, 2, 195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, B. H. (1992). Biodiversity and ecological redundancy. Conservation Biology, 6, 18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, D. H. & Virginia, R. A. (1999). Controls on soil biodiversity: insights from extreme environments. Applied Soil Ecology, 13, 137–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardle, D. A. (1999). Is ‘sampling effect’ a problem for experiments investigating biodiversity–ecosystem function relationships. Oikos, 87, 403–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardle, D. A. (2002). Communities and Ecosystems: Linking the Aboveground and Belowground Components. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Whitford, W. G. (1989). Abiotic controls on the functional structure of soil food webs. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 8, 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolters, V. (2001). Biodiversity of soil animals and its function. European Journal of Soil Biology, 37, 221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yachi, S. & Loreau, M. (1999). Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 96, 1463–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×