Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Soil inoculation steers restoration of terrestrial ecosystems

Nature Plants volume 2, Article number: 16107 (2016) Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Many natural ecosystems have been degraded because of human activities1,2 and need to be restored so that biodiversity is protected. However, restoration can take decades and restoration activities are often unsuccessful3 because of abiotic constraints (for example, eutrophication, acidification) and unfavourable biotic conditions (for example, competition or adverse soil community composition). A key question is what manageable factors prevent transition from degraded to restored ecosystems and what interventions are required for successful restoration2,4. Experiments have shown that the soil community is an important driver of plant community development5–8, suggesting that manipulation of the soil community is key to successful restoration of terrestrial ecosystems3,9. Here we examine a large-scale, six-year-old field experiment on ex-arable land and show that application of soil inocula not only promotes ecosystem restoration, but that different origins of soil inocula can steer the plant community development towards different target communities, varying from grassland to heathland vegetation. The impact of soil inoculation on plant and soil community composition was most pronounced when the topsoil layer was removed, whereas effects were less strong, but still significant, when the soil inocula were introduced into intact topsoil. Therefore, soil inoculation is a powerful tool to both restore disturbed terrestrial ecosystems and steer plant community development.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: The effect of soil inoculation with two different soil inocula on plant and soil community composition in the field after topsoil removal.
Figure 2: Changes in abundance of plant species groups in response to soil inoculation.
Figure 3: Differences in plant community composition and the control because of inoculation (10% w/w) with grassland and heathland soil inocula in a controlled mesocosm experiment.
Figure 4: Comparison of the effect of soil inoculation on plant and soil community composition in plots with and without topsoil removal.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J. & Melillo, J. M. Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277, 494–499 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hobbs, R. J. & Harris, J. A. Restoration ecology: repairing the Earth's ecosystems in the new millennium. Restor. Ecol. 9, 239–246 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Eviner, V. T. & Hawkes, C. V. Embracing variability in the application of plant–soil interactions to the restoration of communities and ecosystems. Restor. Ecol. 16, 713–729 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kulmatiski, A., Beard, K. H. & Stark, J. M. Soil history as a primary control on plant invasion in abandoned agricultural fields. J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 868–876 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Van der Putten, W. H. et al. Plant–soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. J. Ecol. 101, 265–276 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kardol, P., Bezemer, T. M. & Van der Putten, W. H. Temporal variation in plant-soil feedback controls succession. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1080–1088 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carbajo, V., den Braber, B., van der Putten, W. H. & De Deyn, G. B. Enhancement of late successional plants on ex-arable land by soil inoculations. PloS ONE 6, e21943 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. De Deyn, G. B. et al. Soil invertebrate fauna enhances grassland succession and diversity. Nature 422, 711–713 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Harris, J. Soil microbial communities and restoration ecology: facilitators or followers? Science 325, 573–574 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Van der Wal, A. et al. Fungal biomass development in a chronosequence of land abandonment. Soil Biol. Biochem. 38, 51–60 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bauer, J. T., Mack, K. M. L. & Bever, J. D. Plant-soil feedbacks as drivers of succession: evidence from remnant and restored tallgrass prairies. Ecosphere 6, art158–art158 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tsiafouli, M. A. et al. Intensive agriculture reduces soil biodiversity across Europe. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 973–985 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kulmatiski, A. & Beard, K. H. Long-term plant growth legacies overwhelm short-term plant growth effects on soil microbial community structure. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43, 823–830 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jaunatre, R., Buisson, E. & Dutoit, T. Topsoil removal improves various restoration treatments of a Mediterranean steppe (La Crau, southeast France). Appl. Veg. Sci. 17, 236–245 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Marrs, R. H. in Advances in Ecological Research Vol. 24 (eds Fitter, A. H. & Begon, M. ) 241–300 (Academic Press, 1993).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Kardol, P., Bezemer, T. M. & van der Putten, W. H. Soil organism and plant introductions in restoration of species-rich grassland communities. Restor. Ecol. 17, 258–269 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Box, J. et al. Experimental wet heath translocation in Dorset, England. Ecol. Eng. 37, 158–171 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bulot, A., Provost, E. & Dutoit, T. A comparison of different soil transfer strategies for restoring a Mediterranean steppe after a pipeline leak (La Crau plain, South-Eastern France). Ecol. Eng. 71, 690–702 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Vécrin, M. P. & Muller, S. Top-soil translocation as a technique in the re-creation of species-rich meadows. Appl. Veg. Sci. 6, 271–278 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pywell, R. F., Meek, W. R., Webb, N. R., Putwain, P. D. & Bullock, J. M. Long-term heathland restoration on former grassland: The results of a 17-year experiment. Biol. Conserv. 144, 1602–1609 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Antonsen, H. & Olsson, P. A. Relative importance of burning, mowing and species translocation in the restoration of a former boreal hayfield: Responses of plant diversity and the microbial community. J. Appl. Ecol. 42, 337–347 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hamman, S. T. & Hawkes, C. V. Biogeochemical and microbial legacies of non-native grasses can affect restoration success. Restor. Ecol. 21, 58–66 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bakker, J. P. & Berendse, F. Constraints in the restoration of ecological diversity in grassland and heathland communities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 63–68 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bullock, J. M. Community translocation in Britain: Setting objectives and measuring consequences. Biol. Conserv. 84, 199–214 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rowe, H. I., Brown, C. S. & Claassen, V. P. Comparisons of mycorrhizal responsiveness with field soil and commercial inoculum for six native montane species and Bromus tectorum. Restor. Ecol. 15, 44–52 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Emam, T. Local soil, but not commercial AMF inoculum, increases native and non-native grass growth at a mine restoration site. Restor. Ecol. 24, 35–44 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Paluch, E. C., Thomsen, M. A. & Volk, T. J. Effects of resident soil fungi and land use history outweigh those of commercial mycorrhizal inocula: Testing a restoration strategy in unsterilized soil. Restor. Ecol. 21, 380–389 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hoeksema, J. D. et al. A meta-analysis of context-dependency in plant response to inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi. Ecol. Lett. 13, 394–407 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. De Deyn, G. B., Raaijmakers, C. E. & Van der Putten, W. H. Plant community development is affected by nutrients and soil biota. J. Ecol. 92, 824–834 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. van Elsas, J. D. et al. Microbial diversity determines the invasion of soil by a bacterial pathogen. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 1159–1164 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank S. de Bruin, G. Heuvelink, and W. de Boer for their advice, and H. Hofman, H. Veerbeek, L. Veiken and A. Blankena for providing background information on the field site and the experiment. Thanks to R. Wagenaar, C. Raaijmakers, I. Chardon, H. Duyts, Q. Hakkaart, G. Bos, Y. Chau, M. Schrama, S. Schreven, J. Salamon, W. Dimmers, A. Moraru, H.-J. van der Kolk, L. Wit and I. Nugteren for technical assistance. This work was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO ‘Biodiversiteit werkt’ project no. 841.11.008 to TMB). This is publication 6100 of the Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Terrestrial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), PO Box 50, 6700 AB Wageningen, The Netherlands

    E. R. Jasper Wubs, Wim H. van der Putten & T. Martijn Bezemer

  2. Laboratory of Nematology, Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR), PO Box 8123, 6700 ES Wageningen, The Netherlands

    E. R. Jasper Wubs & Wim H. van der Putten

  3. Vereniging Natuurmonumenten, District Zuid-West Veluwe, Planken Wambuisweg 1a, 6718 SP Ede, The Netherlands

    Machiel Bosch

Authors
  1. E. R. Jasper Wubs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wim H. van der Putten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Machiel Bosch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. Martijn Bezemer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.B., T.M.B. and W.H.v.d.P. initiated and designed the field experiment, M.B. implemented the field experiment, E.R.J.W. and T.M.B. designed the mesocosm experiment. E.R.J.W. collected and analysed the data and wrote the first draft. All authors contributed to the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. R. Jasper Wubs.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Figs 1–4, Supplementary Tables 1–9 and Supplementary References. (PDF 623 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wubs, E., van der Putten, W., Bosch, M. et al. Soil inoculation steers restoration of terrestrial ecosystems. Nature Plants 2, 16107 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.107

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.107

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing