Letter | Published:

Land use alters the resistance and resilience of soil food webs to drought

Nature Climate Change volume 2, pages 276280 (2012) | Download Citation


Soils deliver several ecosystem services including carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling, which are of central importance to climate mitigation and sustainable food production1,2,3. Soil biota play an important role in carbon and nitrogen cycling, and, although the effects of land use on soil food webs are well documented4,5,6, the consequences for their resistance and resilience to climate change are not known. We compared the resistance and resilience to drought—which is predicted to increase under climate change2,7—of soil food webs of two common land-use systems: intensively managed wheat with a bacterial-based soil food web and extensively managed grassland with a fungal-based soil food web. We found that the fungal-based food web, and the processes of C and N loss it governs, of grassland soil was more resistant, although not resilient, and better able to adapt to drought than the bacterial-based food web of wheat soil. Structural equation modelling revealed that fungal-based soil food webs and greater microbial evenness mitigated C and N loss. Our findings show that land use strongly affects the resistance and resilience of soil food webs to climate change, and that extensively managed grassland promotes more resistant, and adaptable, fungal-based soil food webs.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    et al. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818 (2010).

  2. 2.

    et al. Implications of climate change for agricultural productivity in the early twenty-first century. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 2973–2989 (2010).

  3. 3.

    Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 2959–2971 (2010).

  4. 4.

    & Functional aspects of soil animal diversity in agricultural grasslands. Appl. Soil Ecol. 10, 263–276 (1998).

  5. 5.

    , , , & Fungal/bacterial ratios in grasslands with contrasting nitrogen management. Soil Biol. Biochem. 38, 2092–2103 (2006).

  6. 6.

    , , , & Soil biota community structure and abundance under agricultural intensification and extensification. Ecology 91, 460–473 (2010).

  7. 7.

    IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S., et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  8. 8.

    , & Microbial contributions to climate change through carbon cycle feedbacks. ISME J. 2, 805–814 (2008).

  9. 9.

    The Biology of Soil: A Community and Ecosystem Approach (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005).

  10. 10.

    & The measurement of soil fungal:bacterial biomass ratios as an indicator of ecosystem self-regulation in temperate meadow grasslands. Biol. Fertil. Soils 29, 282–290 (1999).

  11. 11.

    et al. Trophic interactions in changing landscapes: Responses of soil food webs. Basic Appl. Ecol. 5, 495–503 (2004).

  12. 12.

    Controls of temporal variability of the soil microbial biomass: A global-scale synthesis. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30, 1627–1637 (1998).

  13. 13.

    , , & Nitrogen losses from two grassland soils with different fungal biomass. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43, 997–1005 (2011).

  14. 14.

    , & Drying and rewetting effects on soil microbial community composition and nutrient leaching. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40, 302–311 (2008).

  15. 15.

    , , & Bacterial and fungal contributions to carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 555–569 (2006).

  16. 16.

    , , , & Soil aggregation and carbon sequestration are tightly correlated with the abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: Results from long-term field experiments. Ecol. Lett. 12, 452–461 (2009).

  17. 17.

    & Urban belowground food-web responses to plant community manipulation—impacts on nutrient dynamics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 97, 1–10 (2010).

  18. 18.

    The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 307, 321–326 (1984).

  19. 19.

    Plant Strategies, Vegetation Processes, and Ecosystem Properties (Wiley, 2001).

  20. 20.

    , & Context-dependent changes in the resistance and resilience of soil microbes to an experimental disturbance for three primary plant chronosequences. Oikos 112, 196–208 (2006).

  21. 21.

    et al. Soil food web structure during ecosystem development after land abandonment. Appl. Soil Ecol. 39, 23–34 (2008).

  22. 22.

    & New indices for quantifying the resistance and resilience of soil biota to exogenous disturbances. Soil Biol. Biochem. 36, 1907–1912 (2004).

  23. 23.

    , & Relating microarthropod community structure and diversity to soil fertility manipulations in temperate grassland. Soil Biol. Biochem. 37, 1707–1717 (2005).

  24. 24.

    , , , & Soils, a sink for N2O? A review. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 1–17 (2007).

  25. 25.

    & The functional significance of denitrifier community composition in a terrestrial ecosystem. Ecology 81, 1402–1414 (2000).

  26. 26.

    , , , & Relationship between soil microarthropod species diversity and plant growth does not change when the system is disturbed. Oikos 96, 137–149 (2002).

Download references


This project was part of the EU Seventh Framework funded SOILSERVICE project, led by K. Hedlund. We thank all project partners for contributing to this manuscript through discussions. We thank S. Mortimer and D. Carpenter for setting up the field experiment, and G. Hildred for allowing us into his fields. H. Quirk, L. Trimnell, V. van Velzen, A. Spangenberg, L. F. Petersen, I. Dodd, G. Mies, F. Willeboordse, B. v/d Waterbeemd, C. Siderius, E. Wilson and K. Wilson helped with field and laboratory work. We thank K. Orwin and W. van der Putten for commenting on the manuscript.

Author information


  1. Soil and Ecosystem Ecology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 3EX, UK

    • Franciska T. de Vries
    •  & Richard D. Bardgett
  2. University of Helsinki, Department of Environmental Sciences, Niemenkatu 73, FIN-15140, Lahti, Finland

    • Mira E. Liiri
    •  & Heikki M. Setälä
  3. Biologisk Institut, Terrestrisk Økologi, Øster Farimagsgade 2D, 1353 København K, Denmark

    • Lisa Bjørnlund
    •  & Søren Christensen
  4. Southwest Biological Science Center, US Geological Survey, PO Box 5614, Building 56 No 150, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA

    • Matthew A. Bowker


  1. Search for Franciska T. de Vries in:

  2. Search for Mira E. Liiri in:

  3. Search for Lisa Bjørnlund in:

  4. Search for Matthew A. Bowker in:

  5. Search for Søren Christensen in:

  6. Search for Heikki M. Setälä in:

  7. Search for Richard D. Bardgett in:


R.D.B., H.M.S., S.C., F.T.d.V., M.E.L. and L.B. had the original idea for the experiment. F.T.d.V. set up the experiment, and laboratory work was conducted by F.T.d.V., M.E.L. and L.B. M.A.B. carried out the structural equation modelling. The manuscript was written principally by F.T.d.V. and R.D.B., with extensive input from H.M.S., S.C., M.E.L., L.B. and M.A.B.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franciska T. de Vries.

Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history






Further reading