Abstract

Microbial communities are early responders to wetland degradation, and instrumental players in the reversal of this degradation. However, our understanding of soil microbial community structure and function throughout wetland development remains incomplete. We conducted a survey across cranberry farms, young retired farms, old retired farms, flooded former farms, ecologically restored former farms, and natural reference wetlands with no history of cranberry farming. We investigated the relationship between the microbial community and soil characteristics that restoration intends to maximize, such as soil organic matter, cation exchange capacity and denitrification potential. Among the five treatments considered, flooded and restored sites had the highest prokaryote and microeukaryote community similarity to natural wetlands. In contrast, young retired sites had similar communities to farms, and old retired sites failed to develop wetland microbial communities or functions. Canonical analysis of principal coordinates revealed that soil variables, in particular potassium base saturation, sodium, and denitrification potential, explained 45% of the variation in prokaryote communities and 44% of the variation in microeukaryote communities, segregating soil samples into two clouds in ordination space: farm, old retired and young retired sites on one side and restored, flooded, and natural sites on the other. Heat trees revealed possible prokaryotic (Gemmatimonadetes) and microeukaryotic (Rhizaria) indicators of wetland development, along with a drop in the dominance of Nucletmycea in restored sites, a class that includes suspected mycorrhizal symbionts of the cranberry crop. Flooded sites showed the strongest evidence of wetland development, with triple the soil organic matter accumulation, double the cation exchange capacity, and seventy times the denitrification potential compared to farms. However, given that flooding does not promote any of the watershed or habitat benefits as ecological restoration, we suggest that flooding can be used to stimulate beneficial microbial communities and soil functions during the restoration waiting period, or when restoration is not an option.

Highlights

  • A paradigm shift has occurred in society’s perspective on wetlands

  • We investigated the relationship between the microbial community and soil characteristics that restoration intends to maximize, such as soil organic matter, cation exchange capacity and denitrification potential

  • Question 2: How much variation in community composition can be explained by soil variables, and which of these variables have the strongest association with microbial community structure?

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A paradigm shift has occurred in society’s perspective on wetlands. The “drain the swamp” mentality of the early 1900’s contrasts with today’s rallying calls to preserve, restore, and rewild. The physical soil environment influences microbial community composition, which in turn influences the physical soil environment Despite this established feedback loop, it is still unclear whether discrete community types align closely with soil biogeochemistry (indicator species; [3,4,5]), or whether community members are redundant to one another, their identity uncoupled from their biogeochemistry [6, 7]. Characterizing prokaryotes and microeukaryotes together should yield a more complete picture of the relationships between land management, soil physicochemical gradients, and microbial community structure Within this field of inquiry, restored peat wetlands are a underexplored ecosystem, and evaluating how microbial communities align with soil biogeochemistry should provide insights for managing these unique ecosystems

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call