Societal Impact Statement Across industrial societies, midsize farms are in decline. A future of sustainable agriculture will require more than industrial and cottage farmers. We show that emergent mycorrhizal science is well-suited to support applications for an "agriculture of the middle," and note two obstacles to the development of more integrated mycorrhizal technologies: an overreliance on commercial inoculants (industrial agriculture) and a tendency to treat soil biology as a black box (cottage agriculture). In this paper, we aim to provoke conversation among policy makers, research funders, and corporate executives on the development of mycorrhizal technologies for an agriculture of the middle. Summary Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are dealt with in agriculture in a strongly bifurcated way: products and techniques to optimize AMF communities are designed for either large-scale (industrial) or small-scale (cottage) farming operations. We show how research and applications with AMF are bound up in these contrasting visions for what agriculture should be—an industrial system based on economies of scale, or small-scale operations that cater to regional societies, economies, and ecologies. These distinct socially and technologically bound initiatives—which involve research institutions, government policies, corporate investment, activism, and public relations campaigns—we refer to as sociotechnical imaginaries. Drawing from emergent mycorrhizal research, we argue that mycorrhizal technologies are well-suited to an "agriculture of the middle," a mode of farming that is not strictly scale-based, yet falls somewhere between the industrial and the cottage. Unlike these two extremes, middle agriculture does not have a well-established sociotechnical imaginary. Developing this collective vision poses a challenge: will a middle agriculture that uses AMF fall short of the established goals of industrial and cottage modes of farming? The process of determining appropriate compromises on a wide range of parameters ...
Abstract Background Fungicides are an effective tool for protecting crops and maintaining a steady food supply. However, as pathogens continue to evolve, it is crucial to prolong the effectiveness of fungicides by delaying resistance development. A key strategy to achieving this is to combine or rotate fungicides with different modes of action. As fungicides lack specificity, they inevitably affect both pathogenic and non-pathogenic fungi when surrounding environments are unintentionally contaminated. Our study aims to investigate the effects of recommended application methods to prevent resistance development, specifically repeated-single fungicide, simultaneous mixture, and sequential applications on non-target soil fungi, and the subsequent impacts on important soil processes. We used fungicides with different modes of action on soil microcosms inoculated with fungi at varying levels of diversity (3, 5, and 8 species) isolated from a protected grassland.
Results We found that repeated treatments of individual isopyrazam and prothioconazole differentially inhibited fungal activity. Although mixture applications are considered more protectant against crop pathogen resistance than repeated application, our study revealed stronger negative effects of simultaneous application on saprobic fungi and consequently on soil processes. However, contrary to expectations, higher fungal diversity did not translate to improved soil function under these conditions.
Conclusions The simultaneous application of fungicides with different modes of action (MoA) has more pronounced non-target effects on soil compared to the individual or sequential application of fungicides. These non-target effects extend beyond the intended control of pathogenic fungi, impacting saprobic and beneficial soil microbes and the critical processes they drive. When fungicides are applied concurrently, microbial activities in the soil are significantly altered, even in soils with high microbial diversity. Our study emphasizes the importance of carefully considering the unintended consequences of fungicide use in agriculture. As we strive for a secure food supply, it is crucial to investigate the broader environmental impacts of these chemical interventions, including their effects on non-pathogenic fungi and overall soil health.
Abstract Background Tire wear particles (TWPs) produced by the abrasion between tires and road surfaces have been recognized as an emerging threat to soil health globally in recent years. They can be transported from the road surface to adjacent soil at different delivery rates, with precipitation a main driver underpinning this movement. However, studies typically assume an abrupt exposure of TWPs in their experimental design. In this study, we investigated the impacts of abrupt and gradual delivery of TWPs on soil physicochemical properties and microbial activities. We used two different delivery rates of TWPs (abrupt and gradual) and devised two experimental phases, namely the TWPs-delivery period (phase 1) and the end-of-delivery period (phase 2).
Results We found that the gradual TWPs delivery treatments negatively influenced the activity of carbon cycle-related enzymes (β-glucosidase and β-D-1,4-cellobiosidase). Furthermore, the abrupt treatment highly increased the effects on nitrogen cycle-related enzyme activity (β-1,4-N-acetyl-glucosaminidase). In phase 2 (end-of-delivery period), each enzyme activity was returned to a similar level as the control group, and these changes between phases 1 and 2 depended on the prior delivery rates.
Conclusion Abruptly and gradually delivered TWPs induce different responses to soil microbial activities. Our findings imply that the delivery rate of TWPs could be a key factor changing the effects of TWPs, further enhancing our understanding of the ecological impacts of TWPs.
AbstractNatural systems are under increasing pressure by a range of anthropogenic global change factors. Pesticides represent a nearly ubiquitously occurring global change factor and have the potential to affect soil functions. Currently the use of synthetic pesticides is at an all-time high with over 400 active ingredients being utilized in the EU alone, with dozens of these pesticides occurring concurrently in soil. However, we presently do not understand the impacts of the potential interaction of multiple pesticides when applied simultaneously. Using soil collected from a local grassland, we utilize soil microcosms to examine the role of both rate of change and number of a selection of ten currently used pesticides on soil processes, including litter decomposition, water stable aggregates, aggregate size, soil pH, and EC. Additionally, we used null models to enrich our analyses to examine potential patterns caused by interactions between pesticide treatments. We find that both gradual and abrupt pesticide application have negative consequences for soil processes. Notably, pesticide number plays a significant role in affecting soil health. Null models also reveal potential synergistic behavior between pesticides which can further their consequences on soil processes. Our research highlights the complex impacts of pesticides, and the need for environmental policy to address the threats posed by pesticides.
Plastic pollution has become one of the most pressing environmental challenges and has received commensurate widespread attention. Although it is a top priority for policymakers and scientists alike, the knowledge required to guide decisions, implement mitigation actions, and assess their outcomes remains inadequate. We argue that an integrated, global monitoring system for plastic pollution is needed to provide comprehensive, harmonized data for environmental, societal, and economic assessments. The initial focus on marine ecosystems has been expanded here to include atmospheric transport and terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. An earth-system-level plastic observation system is proposed as a hub for collecting and assessing the scale and impacts of plastic pollution across a wide array of particle sizes and ecosystems including air, land, water, and biota and to monitor progress toward ameliorating this problem. The proposed observation system strives to integrate new information and to identify pollution hotspots (i.e., production facilities, cities, roads, ports, etc.) and expands monitoring from marine environments to encompass all ecosystem types. Eventually, such a system will deliver knowledge to support public policy and corporate contributions to the relevant United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). ; M.S.B. acknowledges funding from the Norway Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries (Institute of Marine Research Ocean Health Strategic Initiative Project Number 15494). P.W.S and M.M. from IAEA are grateful for the support provided to the Environment Laboratories by the Government of the Principality of Monaco. M.C.R. acknowledges funding from an ERC Advanced Grant (694368), from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; projects BIBS and μPlastic), and from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. S.W. is funded by the Medical Research Council, UK (MRC; MR/R026521/1). A.J. acknowledges support from a MA Seaport Economic Council grant. M.W. acknowledges funding from the Norwegian Research Council (301157) and the North Atlantic Microplastic Centre (NAMC). Y.S.O. acknowledges the support of the Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (project no. PJ01475801), RDA, and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) (NRF-2021R1A2C2011734) in Korea.
Aridity, which is increasing worldwide because of climate change, affects the structure and functioning of dryland ecosystems. Whether aridification leads to gradual (versus abrupt) and systemic (versus specific) ecosystem changes is largely unknown. We investigated how 20 structural and functional ecosystem attributes respond to aridity in global drylands. Aridification led to systemic and abrupt changes in multiple ecosystem attributes. These changes occurred sequentially in three phases characterized by abrupt decays in plant productivity, soil fertility, and plant cover and richness at aridity values of 0.54, 0.7, and 0.8, respectively. More than 20% of the terrestrial surface will cross one or several of these thresholds by 2100, which calls for immediate actions to minimize the negative impacts of aridification on essential ecosystem services for the more than 2 billion people living in drylands. ; This research was supported by the European Research Council [ERC grant nos. 242658 (BIOCOM) and 647038 (BIODESERT) awarded to F.T.M.]. M.B. acknowledges support from a Juan de la Cierva Formación grant from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (FJCI-2018-036520-I). F.T.M. acknowledges support from Generalitat Valenciana (CIDEGENT/2018/041), the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and the Synthesis Centre for Biodiversity Sciences (sDiv) of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv). M.D.-B. acknowledges support from the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions of the Horizon 2020 Framework Program H2020-MSCA-IF-2016 under REA grant no. 702057. S.S. was supported by the Spanish Government under a Ramón y Cajal contract (RYC-2016- 20604). N.G. was supported by the AgreenSkills+ fellowship program, which has received funding from the EU's Seventh Framework Programme under grant no. FP7-609398 (AgreenSkills+ contract). V.M. was supported by FRQNT-2017-NC-198009 and NSERC Discovery 2016-05716 grants from the government of Canada. H.S. was supported by a Juan de la Cierva Formación grant from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (FJCI-2015-26782). A.L. and M.C.R. were supported by an ERC Advanced Grant (Gradual Change grant no. 694368) and by the Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft (grant no. RI 1815/16-1). Y.Z. was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (grant no. XDA19030500).
Soils harbor a substantial fraction of the world's biodiversity, contributing to many crucial ecosystem functions. It is thus essential to identify general macroecological patterns related to the distribution and functioning of soil organisms to support their conservation and consideration by governance. These macroecological analyses need to represent the diversity of environmental conditions that can be found worldwide. Here we identify and characterize existing environmental gaps in soil taxa and ecosystem functioning data across soil macroecological studies and 17,186 sampling sites across the globe. These data gaps include important spatial, environmental, taxonomic, and functional gaps, and an almost complete absence of temporally explicit data. We also identify the limitations of soil macroecological studies to explore general patterns in soil biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationships, with only 0.3% of all sampling sites having both information about biodiversity and function, although with different taxonomic groups and functions at each site. Based on this information, we provide clear priorities to support and expand soil macroecological research. ; The German Research Foundation, iDiv, the DFG and the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. Open access funding provided by Projekt DEAL. ; http://www.nature.com/naturecommunications ; am2021 ; Biochemistry ; Genetics ; Microbiology and Plant Pathology
Soils harbor a substantial fraction of the world's biodiversity, contributing to many crucial ecosystem functions. It is thus essential to identify general macroecological patterns related to the distribution and functioning of soil organisms to support their conservation and consideration by governance. These macroecological analyses need to represent the diversity of environmental conditions that can be found worldwide. Here we identify and characterize existing environmental gaps in soil taxa and ecosystem functioning data across soil macroecological studies and 17,186 sampling sites across the globe. These data gaps include important spatial, environmental, taxonomic, and functional gaps, and an almost complete absence of temporally explicit data. We also identify the limitations of soil macroecological studies to explore general patterns in soil biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationships, with only 0.3% of all sampling sites having both information about biodiversity and function, although with different taxonomic groups and functions at each site. Based on this information, we provide clear priorities to support and expand soil macroecological research. ; This manuscript developed from discussions within the German Centre of Integrative Biodiversity Research funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG FZT118). CAG and NE acknowledge funding by iDiv (DFG FZT118) Flexpool proposal 34600850. C.A.G., A.H.B., J.S., A.C., N.G.R., S.C., L.B., M.C.R., F.B., J.O., G.P., H.R.P.P., M.W., T.W., K.K., and N.E. acknowledge funding by iDiv (DFG FZT118) Flexpool proposal 34600844. N.E. acknowledges funding by the DFG (FOR 1451) and the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 677232). Finally we would like to acknowledge the contribution of all the authors that provided their datasets for analysis within this paper. Open access funding provided by Projekt DEAL.
Soil is one of the most biodiverse terrestrial habitats. Yet, we lack an integrative conceptual framework for understanding the patterns and mechanisms driving soil biodiversity. One of the underlying reasons for our poor understanding of soil biodiversity patterns relates to whether key biodiversity theories (historically developed for aboveground and aquatic organisms) are applicable to patterns of soil biodiversity. Here, we present a systematic literature review to investigate whether and how key biodiversity theories (species-energy relationship, theory of island biogeography, metacommunity theory, niche theory and neutral theory) can explain observed patterns of soil biodiversity. We then discuss two spatial compartments nested within soil at which biodiversity theories can be applied to acknowledge the scale-dependent nature of soil biodiversity. ; Published version ; M.P.T. acknowledges funding from the GermanResearch Foundation (DFG, TH 2307/1-1). H.R.P.P.was supported by the sDiv (DFG FZT 118). M.L.was supported by the TULIP Laboratory of Excellence(ANR-10-LABX-41). M.C.R. and W.H.V.d.P. acknowledgesupport from ERC Advanced Grants [grant number:ERC-ADV 694368 and ERC-ADV 323020 (SPECIALS),respectively]. F.T.D.V. is supported by a BBSRC DavidPhillips Fellowship (BB/L02456X/1). N.E. and O.F.acknowledge funding by the European Research Council(ERC Starting Grant 677232, ECOWORM). C.A.G. issupported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 researchand innovation programme under grant agreement No641762-ECOPOTENTIAL. E.K.C. acknowledges fundingfrom the Academy of Finland (285882) and the NaturalSciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada(postdoctoral fellowship 471903 and RGPIN-2019-05758).
Earthworms are an important soil taxon as ecosystem engineers, providing a variety of crucial ecosystem functions and services. Little is known about their diversity and distribution at large spatial scales, despite the availability of considerable amounts of local-scale data. Earthworm diversity data, obtained from the primary literature or provided directly by authors, were collated with information on site locations, including coordinates, habitat cover, and soil properties. Datasets were required, at a minimum, to include abundance or biomass of earthworms at a site. Where possible, site-level species lists were included, as well as the abundance and biomass of individual species and ecological groups. This global dataset contains 10,840 sites, with 184 species, from 60 countries and all continents except Antarctica. The data were obtained from 182 published articles, published between 1973 and 2017, and 17 unpublished datasets. Amalgamating data into a single global database will assist researchers in investigating and answering a wide variety of pressing questions, for example, jointly assessing aboveground and belowground biodiversity distributions and drivers of biodiversity change. ; H.R.P.P., B.K-R., and the sWorm workshops were supported by the sDiv [Synthesis Centre of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig (DFG FZT 118)]. H.R.P.P., O.F. and N.E. acknowledge funding by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 677232 to NE). K.S.R. and W.H.v.d.P. were supported by ERC-ADV grant 323020 to W.H.v.d.P. Also supported by iDiv (DFG FZT118) Flexpool proposal 34600850 (C.A.G. and N.E.); the Academy of Finland (285882) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (postdoctoral fellowship and RGPIN-2019-05758) (E.K.C.); German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01LO0901A) (D.J.R.); ERC-AdG 694368 (M.R.); the TULIP Laboratory of Excellence (ANR-10-LABX-41) (M.L); and the BBSRC David Phillips Fellowship to F.T.d.V. (BB/L02456X/1). In addition, data collection was funded by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (12-04-01538-а, 12-04-01734-a, 14-44-03666-r_center_a, 15-29-02724-ofi_m, 16-04-01878-a 19-05-00245, 19-04-00-609-a); Tarbiat Modares University; Aurora Organic Dairy; UGC(NERO) (F. 1-6/Acctt./NERO/2007-08/1485); Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (RGPIN-2017-05391); Slovak Research and Development Agency (APVV-0098-12); Science for Global Development through Wageningen University; Norman Borlaug LEAP Programme and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); São Paulo Research Foundation - FAPESP (12/22510-8); Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station; INIA - Spanish Agency (SUM 2006-00012-00-0); Royal Canadian Geographical Society; Environmental Protection Agency (Ireland) (2005-S-LS-8); University of Hawai'i at Mānoa (HAW01127H; HAW01123M); European Union FP7 (FunDivEurope, 265171; ROUTES 265156); U.S. Department of the Navy, Commander Pacific Fleet (W9126G-13-2-0047); Science and Engineering Research Board (SB/SO/AS-030/2013) Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi, India; Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) of the U.S. Department of Defense (RC-1542); Maranhão State Research Foundation (FAPEMA 03135/13, 02471/17); Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES 3281/2013); Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (LTT17033); Colorado Wheat Research Foundation; Zone Atelier Alpes, French National Research Agency (ANR-11-BSV7-020-01, ANR-09-STRA-02-01, ANR 06 BIODIV 009-01); Austrian Science Fund (P16027, T441); Landwirtschaftliche Rentenbank Frankfurt am Main; Welsh Government and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (Project Ref. A AAB 62 03 qA731606); SÉPAQ, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland; Science Foundation Ireland (EEB0061); University of Toronto (Faculty of Forestry); National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Haliburton Forest & Wildlife Reserve; NKU College of Arts & Sciences Grant; Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft (837393 and 837426); Mountain Agriculture Research Unit of the University of Innsbruck; Higher Education Commission of Pakistan; Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Kerala; UNEP/GEF/TSBF-CIAT Project on Conservation and Sustainable Management of Belowground Biodiversity; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland; Complutense University of Madrid/European Union FP7 project BioBio (FPU UCM 613520); GRDC; AWI; LWRRDC; DRDC; CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council) and FONCyT (National Agency of Scientific and Technological Promotion) (PICT, PAE, PIP), Universidad Nacional de Luján y FONCyT (PICT 2293 (2006)); Fonds de recherche sur la nature et les technologies du Québec (131894); Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SCHR1000/3-1, SCHR1000/6-1, 6-2 (FOR 1598), WO 670/7-1, WO 670/7-2, & SCHA 1719/1-2), CONACYT (FONDOS MIXTOS TABASCO/PROYECTO11316); NSF (DGE-0549245, DGE-0549245, DEB-BE-0909452, NSF1241932, LTER Program DEB-97–14835); Institute for Environmental Science and Policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago; Dean's Scholar Program at UIC; Garden Club of America Zone VI Fellowship in Urban Forestry from the Casey Tree Endowment Fund; J.E. Weaver Competitive Grant from the Nebraska Chapter of The Nature Conservancy; The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Depaul University; Elmore Hadley Award for Research in Ecology and Evolution from the UIC Dept. of Biological Sciences, Spanish CICYT (AMB96-1161; REN2000-0783/GLO; REN2003-05553/GLO; REN2003-03989/GLO; CGL2007-60661/BOS); Yokohama National University; MEXT KAKENHI (25220104); Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI (25281053, 17KT0074, 25252026); ADEME (0775C0035); Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities of Spain (CGL2017-86926-P); Syngenta Philippines; UPSTREAM; LTSER (Val Mazia/Matschertal); Marie Sklodowska Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (747607); National Science & Technology Base Resource Survey Project of China (2018FY100306); McKnight Foundation (14–168); Program of Fundamental Researches of Presidium of Russian Academy of Sciences (AААА-A18–118021490070–5); Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq 310690/2017–0, 404191/2019–3, 307486/2013–3); French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs; Bavarian Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Forestry (Project No B62); INRA AIDY project; MIUR PRIN 2008; Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station; Estonian Science Foundation; Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Canada; Russian Science Foundation (16-17-10284); National Natural Science Foundation of China (41371270); Australian Research Council (FT120100463); USDA Forest Service-IITF. ; Peer reviewed