Johnson et al. 2005

Johnson DL, Domier JEJ, Johnson DN. 2005. Reflections on the nature of soil and its biomantle. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95: 11-31.

These authors advocate a new paradigm to underlie studies of soil science and related fields, based on increased recognition of processes occurring in and responsible for the production of the “biomantle”, the upper layer of soil composed of and formed by the actions of organisms. Many of these processes are based on movements of soil and soil components, and so are dominated by animals, especially active burrowers that are responsible for large vertical movements of soil in some environments. The biomantle is defined as being composed of “biofabric”, or materials that owe their existence to the actions of organisms, from the bodies of these organisms themselves, to the materials released by the organisms, to the minerals created by biological processes, to the voids created by their movements and the gases filling those voids released by their metabolisms.

These authors trace their ideas from the writings of Darwin, particularly his final work involving the activity of worms in “vegetable mould”, a late-18th century term for what we now call soil.
A biomantle layer, residing chiefly in the A horizon (or topsoil) can be more easily recognized in some landscapes than others. Humid tropical soils especially may show very thick and distinct biomantles, in two layers. The upper, thicker layer is composed of relatively fine materials, resting on a basal layer of coarser material; this basal layer is referred to here as the stonelayer. Below the stonelayer is non-biomantle, typically a B horizon (or subsoil). The hypothesized process creating this two-layer biomantle is the action of “conveyor belt” animals, especially termites that carry small particles upwards but are unable to move larger stones, thus eventually sorting the soil mineral material.

In other soils, such as loess-derived sandy soils without a large component of gravel and larger stones, such a two-layer biomantle may not form, or may be very weakly developed and difficult to identify as such. Nonetheless, bioturbation activity by burrowing animals is usually apparent, for example in the form of “krotovina”, in-filled animal burrows.

Besides advocating for a view of soils and their processes with an animal-based, biomantle point of view, these authors spend some time dismissing subaqueous soils (e.g. marine sediments) as simplistic, uncomplicated places lacking many of the key (and very complex) processes that occur in subaerial soils. Their list of such processes near the end of the paper, taken as a kind of justification for their uncited and unsupported dismissal of subaqueous soils, is composed entirely of those processes relating to changing water amounts in terrestrial soils, such as groundwater flow and wetting and drying events. I found their argument unconvincing, as they do not describe any aqueous-only processes such as changes in dissolved-O2 concentrations or the sorting action of water currents, and their blithe disregard for marine biodiversity in statements about how much more diverse the life in terrestrial soils must be, is the proverbial icing on the insult cake. Johnson et al.: please cite some evidence to support such sweeping generalizations.

Michelsen et al. 1999

Michelsen, A., Graglia, E., Schmidt, I.K., Jonasson, S., Sleep, D., and Quarmby, C. 1999. Differential responses of grass and a dwarf shrub to long-term changes in soil microbial biomass C, N and P following factorial addition of NPK fertilizer, fungicide and labile carbon to a heath. New Phytologist 143(3): 523-538.

These authors measured the responses of two tundra plants, one graminoid and one shrub, to additions of fertilizer, labile carbon, and a fungicide over four years in a heath in subarctic Sweden. The underlying hypothesis is that differences in growth strategy between these two groups of plants would be reflected in their responses to changes in microbial biomass, also measured by these authors.

Molecules inaccessible to plants by virtue of being incorporated into microbial cells in soils dominate their respective pools. For example, in this study, microbial N concentrations were up to 50 times higher than free, inorganic N such as ammonium. Similar ratios were found for C and P. Rapid incorporation of these nutrients into microbes therefore constitutes competition between microbes and plants. Consistent with the variety of ecological and growth strategies that plants have evolved interacting with each other and with the abiotic features, plant strategies impact their interactions with microbes and how they react to such competition.

As predicted, the graminoid Festuca ovina responded rapidly to changes in nutrient levels. Added N from fertilizers led to increased ground cover by this grass, while added labile C, in the form of sugar, led to decreased ground cover, presumably due to a rapid increase in microbial biomass and associated increased microbial uptake of soil N and P. In contrast, the shrub Vaccinium uliginosum did not appreciably react to changes in nutrient levels, consistent with a long-view growth strategy and successful escape from severe competition with soil microbes. This may have been mediated by the mycorrhizal associations the shrub has but the graminoid lacks.

This paper, interestingly, does not cite any of the work by Wardle or Nilsson, the authors who severely criticized the earlier work by this research group (Michelsen et al. 1995).

Wardle and Nilsson 1997

Wardle DA, Nilsson M-C. 1997. Microbe-plant competition, allelopathy and arctic plants. Oecologia 109: 291-293.

These authors critique Michelsen et al. (1995), a study that came to several important conclusions regarding the interactions between Arctic plants and the soil microbial communities. This is a very negative review of that paper, in which these authors question almost all of the conclusions of Michelsen et al. (1995).

These authors make two main criticisms. First, they question the measures of soil microbial activity used by the earlier paper. Second, they question the conclusions regarding the allelopathy of Empetrum hermaphroditum. Soil microbial activity was measured by Michelsen et al. (1995) in two ways: soil respiration, and soil ergosterol content. Neither approach is necessarily informative about one of Michelsen et al.’s (1995) main claims, that soil microbial biomass was increased by the addition of plant leaf extracts. There are a number of studies, many of them with Nilsson as a co-author, in which a lack of association between microbial biomass and soil respiration was demonstrated. Furthermore, ergosterol is presented by Michelsen et al. (1995) as an indicator of fungal biomass, but previous work by Newell and colleagues (e.g. Newell and Fallon, 1991; Newell 1992) showed that ergosterol is not a reliable indicator of biomass nor is it useful as a proxy measure of soil fungal activity; the ratio of ergosterol to fungal biomass is highly variable.

From the reference list in this short paper, it appears that Wardle and Nilsson had, by early 1997, completed a considerable body of work regarding the allelopathic and other ecological interactions of E. hermaphroditum in sub-arctic environments. The conclusion by Michelsen et al. (1995) that the chemicals released by this plant have a greater impact on microbial communities than potential surface-plant competitors is not supported by this work by Wardle, Nilsson, and their colleagues.

The conclusion of Michelsen et al. (1995) that currently has the most direct bearing on my own work is that key plant traits often possessed by prostrate shrubs in tundra ecosystems such as a high root: shoot ratio and storage of nutrients such as nitrogen in the roots allow those plants to escape from or outcompete soil microorganisms. This conclusion was not addressed by these authors, but given the devastation inflicted upon the other conclusions, my confidence in the utility of Michelsen et al. (1995) in addressing issues of interactions between Cassiope tetragonal and soil microbial communities has been shaken.