Cascading effects of moth outbreaks on subarctic soil food webs.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 07 2021
23 07 2021
Historique:
received:
10
02
2021
accepted:
06
07
2021
entrez:
24
7
2021
pubmed:
25
7
2021
medline:
28
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The increasing severity and frequency of natural disturbances requires a better understanding of their effects on all compartments of biodiversity. In Northern Fennoscandia, recent large-scale moth outbreaks have led to an abrupt change in plant communities from birch forests dominated by dwarf shrubs to grass-dominated systems. However, the indirect effects on the belowground compartment remained unclear. Here, we combined eDNA surveys of multiple trophic groups with network analyses to demonstrate that moth defoliation has far-reaching consequences on soil food webs. Following this disturbance, diversity and relative abundance of certain trophic groups declined (e.g., ectomycorrhizal fungi), while many others expanded (e.g., bacterivores and omnivores) making soil food webs more diverse and structurally different. Overall, the direct and indirect consequences of moth outbreaks increased belowground diversity at different trophic levels. Our results highlight that a holistic view of ecosystems improves our understanding of cascading effects of major disturbances on soil food webs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34301993
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-94227-z
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-94227-z
pmc: PMC8302651
doi:
Substances chimiques
Defoliants, Chemical
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
15054Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
New Phytol. 2021 Jan;229(2):1105-1117
pubmed: 32557647
Trends Ecol Evol. 2012 Dec;27(12):689-97
pubmed: 22959162
BMC Ecol. 2014 Dec 05;14:26
pubmed: 25476419
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2016 Aug;91(3):760-81
pubmed: 26010526
Nat Ecol Evol. 2017 Oct;1(10):1511-1519
pubmed: 29185508
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 09;9(6):e99624
pubmed: 24911056
PLoS One. 2007 Feb 14;2(2):e197
pubmed: 17299583
Nature. 2014 Nov 27;515(7528):505-11
pubmed: 25428498
Ecosystems. 2017;20(2):316-330
pubmed: 32226280
Mol Ecol Resour. 2016 Jan;16(1):176-82
pubmed: 25959493
Am Nat. 2016 Oct;188(4):365-78
pubmed: 27622872
Ecol Lett. 2019 Apr;22(4):737-747
pubmed: 30675974
Mol Ecol. 2012 Apr;21(8):1816-20
pubmed: 22300434
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2020 Mar 16;375(1794):20190112
pubmed: 31983338
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2017 Mar 1;93(3):
pubmed: 28115400
J Anim Ecol. 2008 Mar;77(2):257-64
pubmed: 18070041
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 May 19;371(1694):
pubmed: 27114571
Trends Ecol Evol. 2017 Jul;32(7):477-487
pubmed: 28359573
Environ Microbiol. 2016 Jun;18(6):2039-51
pubmed: 26914164
J Eukaryot Microbiol. 2019 Jan;66(1):4-119
pubmed: 30257078
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Nov 26;110(48):19456-9
pubmed: 24167259
Mol Ecol. 2019 Apr;28(8):1857-1862
pubmed: 31033079
Ecol Lett. 2009 May;12(5):369-84
pubmed: 19379132
Front Microbiol. 2019 Jun 11;10:1332
pubmed: 31244819
Ecol Lett. 2019 Feb;22(2):405-419
pubmed: 30560550
Science. 1995 Sep 1;269(5228):1257-60
pubmed: 17732112
Psychometrika. 2017 Dec;82(4):1052-1077
pubmed: 27738957
Trends Ecol Evol. 2018 Mar;33(3):186-197
pubmed: 29325921
Genome. 2016 Sep;59(9):603-28
pubmed: 27484156
Nature. 2010 Nov 25;468(7323):553-6
pubmed: 20981010
Science. 2011 Jul 15;333(6040):301-6
pubmed: 21764740
Mol Ecol Resour. 2009 Jan;9(1):51-60
pubmed: 21564566
Glob Chang Biol. 2018 Aug;24(8):3715-3728
pubmed: 29772087
Science. 2016 Sep 16;353(6305):1272-7
pubmed: 27634532
Sci Rep. 2019 Dec 18;9(1):19331
pubmed: 31852953
Oecologia. 2013 Nov;173(3):859-70
pubmed: 23568711
Glob Chang Biol. 2020 Dec;26(12):7021-7035
pubmed: 33091233
Nat Ecol Evol. 2020 Mar;4(3):393-405
pubmed: 32094542
Microb Ecol. 2015 May;69(4):788-97
pubmed: 25687127
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2018 May;93(2):785-800
pubmed: 28941124