Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Apr;95(2):350-364.
doi: 10.1111/brv.12567. Epub 2019 Nov 15.

Towards an integrative understanding of soil biodiversity

Madhav P Thakur  1   2   3 , Helen R P Phillips  2 , Ulrich Brose  2   4 , Franciska T De Vries  5 , Patrick Lavelle  6 , Michel Loreau  7 , Jerome Mathieu  6 , Christian Mulder  8 , Wim H Van der Putten  1   9 , Matthias C Rillig  10   11 , David A Wardle  12 , Elizabeth M Bach  13 , Marie L C Bartz  14   15 , Joanne M Bennett  2   16 , Maria J I Briones  17 , George Brown  18 , Thibaud Decaëns  19 , Nico Eisenhauer  2   3 , Olga Ferlian  2   3 , Carlos António Guerra  2   16 , Birgitta König-Ries  2   20 , Alberto Orgiazzi  21 , Kelly S Ramirez  1 , David J Russell  22 , Michiel Rutgers  23 , Diana H Wall  13 , Erin K Cameron  24   25
Affiliations

Towards an integrative understanding of soil biodiversity

Madhav P Thakur et al. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2020 Apr.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: alpha diversity; beta diversity; biodiversity theory; metacommunity theory; neutral theory; niche theory; spatial scale; species-energy relationship; theory of island biogeography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Pie charts (top row) documenting the representation of different groups of soil organisms in studies of the five biodiversity theories considered herein. Soil organism categories are based on Decaëns (2010) and Veresoglou et al. (2015). N is the number of studies testing each theory. Below the pie charts, the range of grain and extent sizes reported in the studies are shown, with the size of the point indicating the number of cases. Studies were omitted from this figure if they did not report either the grain or the extent size. Studies on niche and neutral theory are combined as both theories were tested together in some studies, with the rejection of diversity patterns proposed by neutral theory (null hypothesis) considered as support for an alternative pattern proposed by niche theory. MCT, metacommunity theory; SER, species–energy relationships; TIB, theory of island biogeography.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Illustration of spatial compartments in the soil for studying soil biodiversity from micro‐ to macroorganisms. The properties of each compartment that potentially affect the respective biodiversity pattern are listed below the compartments. As we begin to zoom in from soil (S) to soil microsites (S″), the applicability of some biodiversity theories may also change (indicated by thickness of grey bars below the figure). Soil micro‐aggregates are coloured light brown in the S″ compartment; all organisms in S″ are either microorganisms or their predators (e.g. nematodes and protists). Note that microorganisms also can colonize micro‐aggregates as illustrated in S″. Since the temporal scale (t) also co‐varies with spatial scale (Wolkovich et al., 2014), the figure presents three different temporal scales (t1–t3) corresponding to the three spatial scales. f, function.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Adler, P. B. , Hillerislambers, J. & Levine, J. M. (2007). A niche for neutrality. Ecology Letters 10, 95–104. - PubMed
    1. Aleklett, K. , Kiers, E. T. , Ohlsson, P. , Shimizu, T. S. , Caldas, V. E. & Hammer, E. C. (2018). Build your own soil: exploring microfluidics to create microbial habitat structures. The ISME Journal 12, 312–319. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alonso, D. , Etienne, R. S. & McKane, A. J. (2006). The merits of neutral theory. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21, 451–457. - PubMed
    1. Anderson, J. M. (1975). The enigma of soil animal species diversity In Progress in Soil Zoology, pp. 51–58. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
    1. * Åström, J. & Bengtsson, J. (2011). Patch size matters more than dispersal distance in a mainland‐Island metacommunity. Oecologia 167, 747–757. - PubMed

Publication types