Next Article in Journal
Invasive Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) Increases Methane Emissions from a Subtropical Lake in the Yangtze River in China
Next Article in Special Issue
Karst Dolines Support Highly Diversified Soil Collembola Communities—Possible Refugia in a Warming Climate?
Previous Article in Journal
The Contribution of Desert-Dwelling Bats to Pest Control in Hyper-Arid Date Agriculture
Previous Article in Special Issue
Soil Invertebrate Communities as Indicator of Ecological Conservation Status of Some Fertilised Grasslands from Romania
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/d14121035
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Land-Use Types Influence the Community Composition of Soil Mesofauna in the Coastal Zones of Bohai Bay, China

by
Xiaoxue Zheng
1,
Yan Tao
1,2,*,
Zhongqiang Wang
1,
Xinchang Kou
1,
Haixia Wang
1,
Shengzhong Wang
1 and
Donghui Wu
3
1
Key Laboratory of Geographical Processes and Ecological Security in Changbai Mountains, Ministry of Education, School of Geographical Sciences, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China
2
Jilin Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Resource Conservation and Utilization, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130117, China
3
Key Laboratory of Wetland Ecology and Environment, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun 130102, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2022, 14(12), 1035; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/d14121035
Submission received: 31 October 2022 / Revised: 23 November 2022 / Accepted: 25 November 2022 / Published: 26 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Soil Fauna Diversity under Global Change)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Soil faunal communities play key roles in maintaining soil nutrient cycling. Affected by different land-use types, soil environment and soil faunal communities change significantly. However, few studies have focused on the aforementioned observations in coastal zones, which provide suitable habitats for many species of concern. Here, we investigated the changes in soil mesofaunal communities under different land-use types, including cotton fields, jujube trees, ash trees, a saline meadow, and wetlands. The variations in land-use types affected the community composition and diversity of soil mesofauna in the coastal zones. The taxa of soil mesofauna had different responses to land-use types in the coastal zones. Isotomidae was regarded as an indicator taxon of the coastal cropland regions. Entomobryidae was considered to be an indicator taxon of coastal artificial trees. Meanwhile, Onychiuridae and three taxa (Brachycera, Armadillidiidae, and Gammaridae) were indicator taxa of the coastal terrestrial ecosystem and the coastal wetland ecosystem, respectively. Thus, we suggested that specific soil mesofaunal taxa were considered to be appropriate bioindicators for land-use types in the coastal zones. The results of this study were helpful to develop guidelines for coastal biodiversity and ecosystem conservation in the future.

1. Introduction

Coastal zones, the joining points of oceanic ecosystems and terrestrial ecosystems, are typical transitional zones and ecological staggered zones [1]. Coastal zones are particularly sensitive to environmental changes, especially those caused by land-use types, and have strong impacts on soil biodiversity [2,3]. Therefore, the impact of land-use types in coastal zones on belowground ecosystems has become one of the research hotspots of Ecology at present. Variations in land-use types caused by changes in human disturbance can reflect different ecosystem environments. Human activities have split coastal zones into heterogeneous parts and eventually are harmful to ecosystem multifunctionality [4,5]. Previous studies have proved that soil biodiversity is associated with multiple functions of the ecosystem and predictions of ecosystem multifunctionality [6,7,8]. Based on these observations, it is necessary to provide some insights into elucidating the effects of land-use types on soil fauna in coastal zones.
Previous studies have reported that variations in land use have obvious impacts on the distribution characteristics of vegetation [9] and indirectly influence soil properties. For example, soil bulk density, soil moisture, and soil organic matter have been observed to vary with land-use types under different intensities of human disturbance [10,11]. These changes in soil environment then have further profound effects on the belowground ecosystems. This is particularly true for living soil organisms, which are sensitive to soil nutrient changes and are crucial to ecosystem functions [12,13]. Therefore, this study gave some insights into the belowground ecosystems in different land-use types.
Due to their weak tolerance and poor ability to migrate, the taxonomic composition and biodiversity of soil fauna provide valuable indicators for different land-use types [14,15]. However, at present, the majority of research regarding the effects of land-use types on soil fauna has been carried out in inland regions. For example, Vanolli et al. evaluated the responses of soil fauna to land-use variations under sugarcane expansion in central southern Brazil, which showed that Formicidae was the most abundant group, and the land use reduced the total abundance of soil fauna [16]. Silva et al. analyzed the differences in collembolan communities across a European transect comprising the land-use types of forests, grasslands, and arable lands, and suggested that the community traits of collembolan life forms indicated the different land-use types [17]. Furthermore, Anyango et al. and Netshifhefhe et al. observed that different land uses influenced the abundance and diversity of termites in the central highlands of Kenya and South Africa, respectively [18,19]. In conclusion, uncertainty still exists regarding the relationships between different land-use types and soil faunal communities in coastal zones.
As the only semi-closed sea in China, Bohai Bay has an advantageous geographical location and a typical coastal ecosystem, which has special environmental conditions and rich natural resources. Therefore, this study was conducted in Bohai Bay, and soil faunal samples were collected in areas subject to a different type of land use, including cotton fields, jujube trees, ash trees, a saline meadow, and wetlands. Jujube trees and ash trees were artificial trees. Saline meadows and wetlands were unused lands without human disturbance. The hypotheses of this study were as follows: Hypothesis 1 (H1); the variations in land-use types would influence the community composition and diversity of soil fauna in coastal zones; Hypothesis 2 (H2), the taxa of soil mesofauna would indicate the land-use types and the intensities of human disturbance in the coastal zones.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study area was selected in the coastal zones of Bohai Bay, Hebei Province, China (38°24′–38°32′ N, 117°29′–117°35′ E, 2–5 m elevation) (Figure 1). The study area is characterized by a warm temperate marine monsoon climate. The annual average temperature and precipitation values are 12.2 °C and 500 mm, respectively. The soil type is saline–alkali soil (Chinese Soil Taxonomy) [20], which has been partly reclaimed for croplands and woodlands, and the remainder is natural grasslands and wetlands [21,22].

2.2. Soil Mesofauna Sampling

The soil mesofaunal samples were collected in July (summer) of 2020 since most taxa could be found during the peak of vegetation [23]. About 10 km from the Bohai Bay coastline, five land-use types were selected: cotton fields, jujube trees, ash trees, unused land (saline meadow), and wetlands (Figure 1, Table S1). For each land-use type, four 20 m × 20 m independent plots were chosen as four duplicates, and each pair of plots were at least 500 m apart. In each plot, four sampling quadrats were randomly chosen. The sampling size of soil mesofauna was 10 cm× 10 cm, and the sampling depth was 20 cm. At the same time, additional soil samples (10 cm × 10 cm × 20 cm) were evenly mixed and brought back to the laboratory for analysis of soil properties.

2.3. Soil Mesofauna Extraction and Identification

To extract the soil mesofauna, the obtained soil samples were placed in Tullgren funnel extractors for 48 h. Then, all the soil mesofauna samples were preserved in a 75% alcohol solution. Specimens were counted using a stereoscopic microscope (OLYMPUS SZX16) and identified at the family (or suborder) level [24,25]. In addition, in accordance with the classification system of soil faunal taxa, the taxa were divided into dominant (>10%), common (1–10%), and rare (<1%) [26].

2.4. Soil Samples Analysis

The collected soil samples were evenly mixed and stored under 4 °C refrigerated conditions. The measurement methods of soil moisture (SM), soil organic matter (SOM), total nitrogen (TN), nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N), available phosphorus (AP), available potassium (AK), soil cation exchange capacity (CEC), soil pH, and plant coverage (PC) were detailed by Zheng et al. [3]. The concentrations of Na+, K+, Mg2+, and Ca2+ were determined by ICP-AES. The Cl− concentration levels were analyzed using a Hg(NO3)2 titration method after H3PO4 distillation. The SO42− concentrations were determined via a BaSO4 turbidimetry method. The NO3− concentrations were assessed using an electrode method. The above ions were measured based on the methods indicated by the literature [27,28].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

To analyze the community composition of soil mesofauna in different land-use types, the Shannon–Wiener index (H′), Simpson (λ), and Pielou index (J) of soil mesofauna were calculated [29,30,31], as follows:
H ′ = − ∑ i = 1 s n i / N l n n i / N
λ = ∑ i = 1 s n i / N 2
J = H ′ / l n S
where S indicates the number of taxa, ni denotes the abundance of the taxon i, and N represents the total abundance of soil fauna.
For each land-use type, a cluster analysis was used to test the community similarities of soil mesofauna, which was available in R with the “hclust” function package. Then, we created a heat map of the hierarchical clustering to evaluate the distribution types of different soil mesofaunal taxa, which were available within the “pheatmap” R package. Moreover, we created the Venn diagram with a “draw-quintuple-Venn” function, which was available in R with the “VennDiagram” package. In order to determine the variations in soil properties and soil mesofaunal community, the least significant difference (LSD) was used to compare their values.
Caused by the land-use types, differences in the environmental factors (soil moisture, soil organic matter, soil total N, soil available P, soil available K, soil pH, soil CEC, salt content, and plant coverage) and biodiversity levels of soil mesofauna were tested using one-way ANOVA (running SPSS Statistics 22). In addition, a redundancy analysis (RDA) was applied to determine the correlations between the environmental factors and the soil mesofaunal taxa in different land-use types. The RDA for this research investigation was performed in Canoco and CanoDraw [32].

3. Results

3.1. Abundance and Biodiversity of the Soil Mesofauna

In this study, the abundance and diversity levels of the soil mesofauna were found to vary among the different land-use types (Table 1). The highest abundance was observed in the cotton fields, which were followed by the wetlands and the saline meadow. The lowest abundance was observed in the ash trees.
The richness of soil mesofauna was significantly higher in the wetlands and saline meadow when compared with that of the ash trees and jujube trees. The Shannon–Wiener index among the five land-use types was ranked saline meadow > wetlands > ash trees > jujube trees > cotton fields. The ranking of the Simpson index of the soil mesofauna was cotton fields > jujube trees > ash trees > wetlands > saline meadow. On the contrary, the sequencing of the Pielou index (or the evenness index) was saline meadow > wetlands > ash trees > jujube trees > cotton fields.

3.2. Taxonomic Composition and Community Distribution of the Soil Mesofauna

Influenced by different land-use types, the taxonomic composition and dominance of soil mesofauna in the coastal zones changed significantly (Figure 2, Table S2). Acari were dominant in the jujube trees, which accounted for 84% of the total abundance. In the three land-use types of cotton fields, ash trees, and the saline meadow, not only Acari but also Collembola had a large abundance, which together constituted the dominant taxa. In these three land-use types, the dominant taxa accounted for 93%, 75%, and 49% of the total abundance, respectively. In the ash trees and saline meadow, the decrease in dominant taxa of the soil mesofauna provided an ecological niche for the survivals of other taxa, thereby promoting the abundant increase in common taxa in that land-use type (Table S2). In wetlands, in addition to Acari, there were taxa with wet-loving and sun-loving suborders, reflecting the influence of environmental changes in different land-use types on the taxonomic composition of soil mesofauna. In general, Acari were dominant among soil mesofauna in the coastal zones of Bohai Bay, mainly Actinedida and Oribatida, while other taxa were less dominant.
This study’s Venn diagram is shown in Figure 3, in which the shared and unique taxa of the soil mesofauna can be seen. The five land-use types were confirmed to have eight shared taxa (Actinedida, Oribatida, Gamasida, Isotomidae, Onychiuridae, Hypogastruridae, Entomobryidae, and Staphylinidae), which contributed to nearly 90.00% of the full sets of taxa. Moreover, the presence of unique taxa of soil mesofauna characterizing the five land-use types has been recorded.
In the cotton fields, the unique taxon of the soil mesofauna was Scarabaeidae. No unique taxon was found in the jujube trees. In the ash trees, the unique taxa were determined to be Elateridae and Enchytraeidae. In the saline meadow, the unique taxa were observed to be Cicindelidae and Trachelipidae. Finally, four unique taxa were observed in the wetlands, namely, Scaphidiidae, Brachycera, Armadillidiidae, and Gammaridae.
The community distribution of the soil mesofauna was shown to vary among the different land-use types (Figure 4). The heatmap indicated that the five land-use types could be divided into three clusters as follows: a cluster of cotton fields, one of wetlands, and the last gathering the ash trees, jujube trees, and saline meadow. In addition, the taxa of the soil mesofauna were divided into the following five clusters: Actinedida, Brachycera, and Entomobryidae composed three clusters, respectively; Onychiuridae and Oribatida constituted another cluster; and the other taxa made up the final cluster.

3.3. Variations in the Environmental Factors Affected by the Land-Use Types

Table 2 shows the soil physicochemical properties among the five land-use types. Soil moisture and soil organic matter were significantly higher in wetlands than those in other land-use types. The contents of NO3-N, available P, and available K were relatively higher in the cotton fields. As for the salt content, the wetlands had the highest value. Moreover, the concentrations of soil ions varied among the land-use types. The majority of ions were widely distributed in the wetlands, especially Na+ and Cl−.

3.4. Relationship between the Soil Mesofauna Taxa and the Environmental Factors among the Land-Use Types

Two-dimensional diagrams of the redundancy analysis (RDA) results were drawn to explain the integrated information of the sequencing objects (land-use types), responsive variables (dominant and common soil mesofaunal taxa), and explanatory variables (soil properties and vegetation). Figure 5 shows the relationship between the soil mesofaunal taxa and the variations in the environmental factors. Figure 5A highlights that Isotomidae was dominant in the cotton fields and had positive responses to the soil NO3-N, but negative responses to the soil moisture and soil organic matter. Brachycera, Gammaridae, and Armadillidiidae responded positively to the wetlands, and were positively correlated to the soil moisture and soil organic matter. Furthermore, Entomobryidae and Onychiuridae were found to respond positively to the ash trees and saline meadow, respectively. Entomobryidae in the ash trees was positively correlated with the soil CEC and soil pH, while negatively correlated with the soil NO3-N and plant coverage.
As can be seen in the diagram of Figure 5B, the soil mesofaunal taxa also had different responses to the soil ions among the land-use types. It was found that Isotomidae in the cotton fields responded positively to the NO3−, and negatively to the salt content, Na+, K+, Ca2+, Cl−, and SO42−. On the contrary, Brachycera, Gammaridae, and Armadillidiidae in the wetlands were found to be positively correlated with the salt content, Na+, K+, Ca2+, Cl−, and SO42−, but negatively correlated with the NO3−. Moreover, it was determined that Entomobryidae and Onychiuridae displayed negative responses to the NO3− and Mg2+.

4. Discussion

4.1. Effects of the Land-Use Types on the Wetland Habitats and the Soil Mesofauna

Among the five land-use types, the cotton fields were found to have the highest abundance but the lowest diversity index of soil mesofauna. This study demonstrated that these results could be attributed to the severe disturbance in the cotton fields. The vegetation coverage in the cotton fields was almost 85%, which was considered a high coverage level. The cotton plants and litter provided plentiful food sources for the soil mesofauna. However, due to the monoculture in the cotton fields, the diversity levels of aboveground vegetation and belowground roots were the lowest [33,34]. Moreover, the severe human disturbance in the cotton fields may promote the survival and reproduction of some highly resistant taxa, such as Actinedida, Oribatida, and Isotomidae, which have been proven to be tolerant of human disturbance [35].
In the jujube trees and ash trees, undergrowth vegetation competed for light, water, and nutrients, which limited the development of undergrowth vegetation [36,37]. The undergrowth vegetation and its litter then limited the food sources of the soil mesofauna [36]. These results are different from those obtained in the study of Zhu et al. [38], which were attributed to the locations of artificial trees. The artificial trees in this study were distributed in the coastal zones, while the artificial trees in the study of Zhu et al. [38] were located in the inland regions. Therefore, the differences between coastal plantations and inland plantations varied the community composition of soil mesofauna, which was reflected in the observation that the soil mesofaunal community in coastal zones tended to be more resistant to humidity and salinity than those in inland regions.
The saline meadow maintained its original state and reserved a large number of native herbaceous plants, which provided food sources and a suitable living environment for the soil mesofauna. At the same time, the larger Pielou evenness index in the saline meadow indicated that the soil mesofauna taxa were evenly distributed, and the abundance of each taxon was relatively close. According to the theory of ecological niche, each individual or taxon has its own spatial position and function within a community [39]. Therefore, the higher evenness of the soil mesofauna reflects an equilibrium in the coexistence of species, on which the balance and stability of ecosystem functioning are based [40,41].
Located in the Nandagang region, the coastal wetlands were influenced by the combined effects of the sea and inland [42]. Therefore, the wetland habitats were more complex than those in the other land-use types. In the wetlands, the large vegetation cover (90%) ensured the food sources of the soil mesofaunal subsistence. At the same time, the interactions of the aquatic and terrestrial traits may have promoted more unique taxa of the soil mesofauna. This effect was not found in the studies regarding the soil fauna in the inland wetlands [43,44,45]. In conclusion, these results confirmed the H1 hypothesis, in which the land-use types influenced the community composition of soil fauna in the coastal zones.

4.2. Responses of the Soil Mesofaunal Taxa to Land-Use Types in the Coastal Zones

In the cotton fields, the severe human disturbance significantly shaped the characteristics of the soil properties, especially the NO3-N (Table 2). During crop production, fertilizers were of importance to increase crop yield. In the coastal croplands, N fertilizers were consumed much more, which were easier to runoff with water leaching and then remain in the soil. Among the dominant and common soil mesofauna taxa, Isotomidae had a positive correlation with soil NO3-N in the cotton fields (Figure 5A). This result was similar to previous studies, in which the abundance of Isotomidae has been reported as an indicator of soil fertility in croplands due to its higher sensitivity to soil N [46,47,48].
In the ash trees, the dominant soil mesofaunal taxon was Entomobryidae. Entomobryidae might adapt to the habitats in ash trees, which was also reported in the study of Peng et al. [49].
Onychiuridae was observed to be the dominant taxon in the unused land (saline meadow) of Bohai Bay, China, while Isotomidae and Entomobryidae were the dominant taxa in the saline grassland of inland China [50]. This indicated that the habitats of the coastal meadow ecosystem and the inland grassland ecosystem were different. Different ecosystems promoted the heterogeneity of habitats and species. Therefore, this study suggested that Onychiuridae could be used as a bioindicator of the coastal meadow ecosystem without human disturbance.
Different from the coastal terrestrial ecosystem of the saline meadow, the wetlands were characterized as the coastal wetland ecosystem. The differences in water conditions shaped the two coastal habitats [51]. Moreover, the salt content, metal ions (Na+, K+, and Ca2+), and negative ions (Cl− and SO42−) in the soil were abundant in the wetlands, mainly due to soil salinization in the coastal zones [52,53].
In the Nandagang wetlands, the interactions between the marine ecosystem and the terrestrial ecosystem improved the heterogeneity and sensitivity of the wetland habitats. At the same time, the complex natural processes and diverse habitats promoted the diversity of species, which were reflected in the unique soil mesofaunal taxa. Brachycera, Armadillidiidae, and Gammaridae were observed to be abundant in the wetlands. Brachycera found in this study were Brachycera larvae, which may be relatively active in wet soils. Armadillidiidae and Gammaridae, normally considered to be soil macrofauna taxa, were also found to be abundant in wetlands. Armadillidiidae tends to inhabit dark and humid habitats, which was also reported in the study of Li et al. [43]. The majority of Armadillidiidae are considered to be omnivores, feeding on the roots and leaves of plants or the carcasses of small invertebrates. As a variety of typical benthic fauna, Gammaridae mainly lives on the surface or inside water sediment [54]. The nutritional sources of Gammaridae are broad, including planktonic algae and small zooplankton. Moreover, the ecological “borderline” presence of Gammaridae confirmed that among the soil mesofauna community, typically, freshwater taxa could be recorded in particularly wet environments. The humid habitats and salinity conditions in the wetlands promoted the three taxa to be positive bioindicators for the coastal wetland ecosystem. In conclusion, the taxa of soil mesofauna were able to indicate the land-use types in the coastal zones, which confirmed the H2 hypothesis.

5. Conclusions

In summary, the land-use types in the coastal zones were confirmed to change the coastal habitats and soil faunal community. The abundance, diversity, and composition of soil fauna varied with the land-use types in the coastal zones. In that regard, the specific soil faunal taxa were considered useful bioindicators for land-use types in the coastal zones. Actinedida was a common and dominant soil mesofauna taxon under different land-use types in the coastal zones of Bohai Bay. The diversity of soil mesofauna in cotton fields (high human disturbance) was the lowest, while the diversity of soil mesofauna in natural habitats (no human disturbance) such as the saline meadow and wetlands was the highest. Soil fauna diversity can be used as an effective index to evaluate the different disturbance intensities of land use in coastal zones. Overall, the findings of this study were found to provide implications for deepening the understanding of the ecological status of soil fauna. In addition, potential assistance was provided for developing conservation guidelines for coastal biodiversity and ecosystems in the future.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/d14121035/s1, Table S1: Habitat characteristics of the five land-use types. Table S2: The amounts and abundance ratios of soil mesofauna in the five land-use types.

Author Contributions

Methodology, X.Z. and Y.T.; Software, X.Z.; Formal analysis, X.Z.; Data curation, X.Z. and Y.T.; Writing—original draft preparation, X.Z.; Writing—review and editing, Y.T., Z.W., X.K., H.W., S.W. and D.W.; Funding acquisition, Y.T., S.W. and D.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by China Scholarship Council under Grant (202006625051), the National Science and Technology Fundamental Resources Investigation Program of China (2018FY100300), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42271049, U20A2083). We thank the editor and reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions on this paper.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or Supplementary Materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Holligan, P.; Reiners, W. Predicting the Responses of the Coastal Zone to Global Change. Adv. Ecol. Res. 1992, 22, 211–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Srinath, K. Gender and Coastal Zone Biodiversity. Gend. Technol. Dev. 2008, 12, 209–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zheng, X.; Tao, Y.; Wang, Z.; Ma, C.; He, H.; Yin, X. Soil macro-fauna respond to environmental variations along a coastal-inland gradient. PeerJ 2020, 8, e9532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Yu, W.; Zou, X.; Zhang, D.; Wang, T.; Wang, C.; Yao, Y.; Zhang, H.; Ben, C.; Yuan, J. The evaluation of marine biological value of the Jiangsu coastal zone (east of China) under the interference of human activities. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 102, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Santos, R.; Monteiro, S.; Cortes, R.; Pacheco, F.; Fernandes, L.S. Seasonal effect of land use management on gill histopathology of Barbel and Douro Nase in a Portuguese watershed. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 764, 142869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kou, X.; Tao, Y.; Wang, S.; Wu, Z.; Wu, H. Soil meso-fauna community composition predicts ecosystem multifunctionality along a coastal-inland gradient of the Bohai Bay. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021, 32, 4574–4582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yang, L.; Barnard, R.; Kuzyakov, Y.; Tian, J. Bacterial communities drive the resistance of soil multifunctionality to land-use change in karst soils. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2021, 104, 103313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tripathi, G.; Ram, S.; Sharma, B.; Singh, G. Soil faunal biodiversity and nutrient status in silvopastoral systems of Indian desert. Environ. Conserv. 2005, 32, 178–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Riordan, E.C.; Gillespie, T.W.; Pitcher, L.; Pincetl, S.S.; Jenerette, G.D.; Pataki, D.E. Threats of future climate change and land use to vulnerable tree species native to Southern California. Environ. Conserv. 2014, 42, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Akinde, B.P.; Olakayode, A.O.; Oyedele, D.J.; Tijani, F.O. Selected physical and chemical properties of soil under different agricultural land-use types in Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Heliyon 2020, 6, e05090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fentie, S.F.; Jembere, K.; Fekadu, E.; Wasie, D. Land Use and Land Cover Dynamics and Properties of Soils under Different Land Uses in the Tejibara Watershed, Ethiopia. Sci. World J. 2020, 2020, 1479460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Lu, P.; Tan, Y.; Dai, N.; Di, M.; Weng, X.; Zhan, Y.; Xu, D. Composition and structure of soil fauna communities and their relationships with environmental factors in copper mine waste rock after re-vegetation. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 32, e01889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Renčo, M.; Čerevková, A.; Homolová, Z. Nematode communities indicate the negative impact of Reynoutria japonica invasion on soil fauna in ruderal habitats of tatra national park in Slovakia. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 26, e01470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yang, B.; Zhang, W.; Xu, H.; Wang, S.; Xu, X.; Fan, H.; Chen, H.Y.H.; Ruan, H. Effects of soil fauna on leaf litter decomposition under different land uses in eastern coast of China. J. For. Res. 2017, 29, 973–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, Y.; Ma, L.; Wang, J.; Shao, M.; Zhang, J. Soil faunal community composition alters nitrogen distribution in different land use types in the Loess Plateau, China. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 163, 103910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Vanolli, B.S.; Canisares, L.P.; Franco, A.L.; Delabie, J.H.; Cerri, C.E.; Cherubin, M.R. Epigeic fauna (with emphasis on ant community) response to land-use change for sugarcane expansion in Brazil. Acta Oecologica 2021, 110, 103702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. da Silva, P.M.; Carvalho, F.; Dirilgen, T.; Stone, D.; Creamer, R.; Bolger, T.; Sousa, J.P. Traits of collembolan life-form indicate land use types and soil properties across an European transect. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2016, 97, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Anyango, J.J.; Bautze, D.; Fiaboe, K.K.M.; Lagat, Z.O.; Muriuki, A.W.; Stöckli, S.; Riedel, J.; Onyambu, G.K.; Musyoka, M.W.; Karanja, E.N.; et al. The impact of conventional and organic farming on soil biodiversity conservation: A case study on termites in the long-term farming systems comparison trials in Kenya. BMC Ecol. 2020, 20, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Netshifhefhe, S.; Kunjeku, E.; Duncan, F. Effects of different land use patterns on seasonal termite species diversity within the Vhembe district of the Limpopo province, South Africa. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2019, 40, 293–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Chinese Soil Taxonomy; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gao, H.; Liu, J.; Eneji, A.E.; Han, L.; Tan, L. Using Modified Remote Sensing Imagery to Interpret Changes in Cultivated Land under Saline-Alkali Conditions. Sustainability 2016, 8, 619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liu, W.; Zhang, W.; Liu, G.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, G. Microbial diversity in the saline-alkali soil of a coastal Tamarix chinensis woodland at Bohai Bay, China. J. Arid Land 2016, 8, 284–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bernier, N.; Gillet, F. Structural relationships among vegetation, soil fauna and humus form in a subalpine forest ecosystem: A Hierarchical Multiple Factor Analysis (HMFA). Pedobiologia 2012, 55, 321–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Yin, W.Y. Soil Animals of China; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  25. Yin, W.Y. Pictorial Keys to Soil Animals of China; Science Press: Beijing, China, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  26. Xu, H. Community Composition and Ecological Distribution of Soil Collembola from Typicalfarmland Ecosystems in the Changbai Mountains; Northeast Normal University: Changchun, China, 2018. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  27. Bao, S.D. Agricultural and Chemistry Analysis of Soil; Chinese Agriculture Press: Beijing, China, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  28. Sandroni, V.; Smith, C.M.M. Microwave digestion of sludge, soil and sediment samples for metal analysis by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry. Anal. Chim. Acta 2002, 468, 335–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Weaver, W.; Shannon, C.E. The Mathematical Theory of Communication; University of Illinois Press: Champaign, IL, USA, 1949. [Google Scholar]
  30. Simpson, E.H. Measurement of diversity. Nature 1949, 163, 688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pielou, E.C. The use of information theory in the study of ecological succession. J. Theor. Biol. 1966, 10, 370–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Leps, J.; Smilauer, P. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using Canoco 5: Access to Canoco and Overview of Other Software; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bessler, H.; Temperton, V.M.; Roscher, C.; Buchmann, N.; Schmid, B.; Schulze, E.-D.; Weisser, W.W.; Engels, C. Aboveground overyielding in grassland mixtures is associated with reduced biomass partitioning to belowground organs. Ecology 2009, 90, 1520–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Barry, K.E.; Weigelt, A.; van Ruijven, J.; de Kroon, H.; Ebeling, A.; Eisenhauer, N.; Gessler, A.; Ravenek, J.M.; Scherer-Lorenzen, M.; Oram, N.J.; et al. Above- and belowground overyielding are related at the community and species level in a grassland biodiversity experiment. Adv. Ecol. Res. 2019, 61, 55–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Coyle, D.R.; Nagendra, U.J.; Taylor, M.K.; Campbell, J.H.; Cunard, C.E.; Joslin, A.H.; Mundepi, A.; Phillips, C.A.; Callaham, M.A. Soil fauna responses to natural disturbances, invasive species, and global climate change: Current state of the science and a call to action. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 110, 116–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Augusto, L.; Dupouey, J.-L.; Ranger, J. Effects of tree species on understory vegetation and environmental conditions in temperate forests. Ann. For. Sci. 2003, 60, 823–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Warren, S.L.; Monaco, T.J.; Skroch, W.A. Effect of Vegetation Management on Soil Nutrients and Nutrient Content of Herbaceous Vegetation. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1987, 112, 962–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Chen, L.; Li, Z. Does non-native black locust afforestation affect soil biodiversity at the regional scale? Case study of soil macroinvertebrates across the Chinese Loess Plateau. Catena 2021, 200, 105171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chase, J.M.; Leibold, M.A. Ecological Niches: Linking Classical and Contemporary Approaches. Biodivers. Conserv. 2004, 13, 1791–1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Letten, A.D.; Ke, P.; Fukami, T. Linking modern coexistence theory and contemporary niche theory. Ecol. Monogr. 2017, 87, 161–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Marchán, D.F.; Refoyo, P.; Fernández, R.; Novo, M.; de Sosa, I.; Cosín, D.J.D. Macroecological inferences on soil fauna through comparative niche modeling: The case of Hormogastridae (Annelida, Oligochaeta). Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2016, 75, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Jiang, T.-T.; Pan, J.-F.; Pu, X.-M.; Wang, B.; Pan, J.-J. Current status of coastal wetlands in China: Degradation, restoration, and future management. Estuarine Coast. Shelf Sci. 2015, 164, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Li, W.; Dou, Z.; Cui, L.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Gao, C.; Yang, Z.; Lei, Y.; Pan, X. Soil fauna diversity at different stages of reed restoration in a lakeshore wetland at Lake Taihu, China. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2020, 6, 1722034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Wu, H.; Lu, X.; Jiang, M.; Bao, X. Impacts of soil fauna on litter decomposition at different succession stages of wetland in Sanjiang Plain, China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2009, 19, 258–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Marx, M.T.; Yan, X.; Wang, X.; Song, L.; Wang, K.; Zhang, B.; Wu, D. Soil Fauna Abundance, Feeding and Decomposition in Different Reclaimed and Natural Sites in the Sanjiang Plain Wetland, Northeast China. Wetlands 2016, 36, 445–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Santorufo, L.; van Gestel, K.; Rocco, A.; Maisto, G. Soil invertebrates as bioindicators of urban soil quality. Environ. Pollut. 2012, 161, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rousseau, L.; Fonte, S.J.; Téllez, O.; van der Hoek, R.; Lavelle, P. Soil macrofauna as indicators of soil quality and land use impacts in smallholder agroecosystems of western Nicaragua. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 27, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhu, X.; Zhu, B. Diversity and abundance of soil fauna as influenced by long-term fertilization in cropland of purple soil, China. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 146, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Peng, Y.; Holmstrup, M.; Schmidt, I.K.; De Schrijver, A.; Schelfhout, S.; Heděnec, P.; Zheng, H.; Bachega, L.R.; Yue, K.; Vesterdal, L. Litter quality, mycorrhizal association, and soil properties regulate effects of tree species on the soil fauna community. Geoderma 2021, 407, 115570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yin, X.; Ma, C.; He, H.; Wang, Z.; Li, X.; Fu, G.; Liu, J.; Zheng, Y. Distribution and diversity patterns of soil fauna in different salinization habitats of Songnen Grasslands, China. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 123, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhang, T.; Chang, J.; Ma, Y.; Sun, Y.; Liu, C. Study on the Evolution Characteristics of Coastal Wetlands of Bohai Sea in Shandong Province under the Influence of Human Activities. J. Coast. Res. 2020, 105, 28–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wang, Z.; Tan, W.; Yang, D.; Zhang, K.; Zhao, L.; Xie, Z.; Xu, T.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, X.; Pan, X.; et al. Mitigation of soil salinization and alkalization by bacterium-induced inhibition of evaporation and salt crystallization. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 755, 142511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Phan, K.; Chek, S.; Eav, C.; Sieng, H.; Kim, K.-W. Assessing Salinization and Water Quality in Koh Kong Coastal Areas of Cambodia: Potential Impacts of Climate Change. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2021, 232, 510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mosbahi, N.; Serbaji, M.M.; Pezy, J.-P.; Neifar, L.; Dauvin, J.-C. Response of benthic macrofauna to multiple anthropogenic pressures in the shallow coastal zone south of Sfax (Tunisia, central Mediterranean Sea). Environ. Pollut. 2019, 253, 474–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 14 01035 g001 550
Figure 1. Locations of the study area and the land-use types.
Figure 1. Locations of the study area and the land-use types.
Diversity 14 01035 g001
Diversity 14 01035 g002 550
Figure 2. Taxonomic composition of the soil mesofauna among the land-use types.
Figure 2. Taxonomic composition of the soil mesofauna among the land-use types.
Diversity 14 01035 g002
Diversity 14 01035 g003 550
Figure 3. Venn diagram of the number of shared and unique soil mesofaunal taxa. The shared and unique numbers within the circles indicate the number of either shared taxa or unique taxa in the overlapping regions.
Figure 3. Venn diagram of the number of shared and unique soil mesofaunal taxa. The shared and unique numbers within the circles indicate the number of either shared taxa or unique taxa in the overlapping regions.
Diversity 14 01035 g003
Diversity 14 01035 g004 550
Figure 4. Heatmap of the soil mesofaunal abundance in the five land-use types. Dendrogram of the land-use types based on similarity along the right axis. Dendrogram of the soil mesofaunal taxa based on similarity along the upper axis. The various colors represent the abundance of the soil mesofauna.
Figure 4. Heatmap of the soil mesofaunal abundance in the five land-use types. Dendrogram of the land-use types based on similarity along the right axis. Dendrogram of the soil mesofaunal taxa based on similarity along the upper axis. The various colors represent the abundance of the soil mesofauna.
Diversity 14 01035 g004
Diversity 14 01035 g005 550
Figure 5. Two-dimensional diagrams of redundancy analysis (RDA) results for soil mesofauna taxa and the environmental factors: (A) soil properties and plant coverage; (B) salt content and soil ions. The black solid symbols represent the different land-use types. The blue hollow circles indicate the soil mesofauna taxa (for their full names, see Table S2). The red arrows represent the environmental factors.
Figure 5. Two-dimensional diagrams of redundancy analysis (RDA) results for soil mesofauna taxa and the environmental factors: (A) soil properties and plant coverage; (B) salt content and soil ions. The black solid symbols represent the different land-use types. The blue hollow circles indicate the soil mesofauna taxa (for their full names, see Table S2). The red arrows represent the environmental factors.
Diversity 14 01035 g005
Table
Table 1. Results of the abundance and biodiversity levels of the soil mesofauna (mean ± SE). The lowercase letters (a, b, and c) indicate the significant differences in each habitat within the same abundance and diversity indexes at p < 0.05.
Table 1. Results of the abundance and biodiversity levels of the soil mesofauna (mean ± SE). The lowercase letters (a, b, and c) indicate the significant differences in each habitat within the same abundance and diversity indexes at p < 0.05.
Land-Use Typesp
Cotton FieldsJujube TreesAsh TreesSaline MeadowWetlands
Abundance (ind/m2)145,200 ± 3000 a105,700 ± 1600 b88,400 ± 900 c114,900 ± 1700 b119,300 ± 2800 b**
Richness2019182224-
Shannon–Wiener index1.41 ± 0.02 c1.55 ± 0.04 c1.77 ± 0.05 b1.94 ± 0.07 a1.93 ± 0.09 a**
Simpson index0.39 ± 0.05 a0.32 ± 0.04 a0.26 ± 0.05 b0.19 ± 0.04 c0.24 ± 0.04 b**
Pielou index0.47 ± 0.06 b0.53 ± 0.05 b0.60 ± 0.10 a0.63 ± 0.07 a0.61 ± 0.05 a*
Dominant taxa (number)43332-
Common taxa (number)357511-
Rare taxa (number)131181411-
*, 0.05 < p < 0.10; **, p < 0.05.
Table
Table 2. Soil physicochemical properties in the five land-use types (mean ± SE). The least significant difference (LSD) was used to compare the means. Values with different letters (a, b, and c) correspond to means significantly differing at p < 0.05. SM, soil moisture; SOM, soil organic matter; TN, soil total N; AP, soil available P; AK, soil available K; CEC, soil cation exchange capacity; SC, salt content in the soil.
Table 2. Soil physicochemical properties in the five land-use types (mean ± SE). The least significant difference (LSD) was used to compare the means. Values with different letters (a, b, and c) correspond to means significantly differing at p < 0.05. SM, soil moisture; SOM, soil organic matter; TN, soil total N; AP, soil available P; AK, soil available K; CEC, soil cation exchange capacity; SC, salt content in the soil.
Land-Use Typesp
Cotton FieldsJujube TreesAsh TreesSaline MeadowWetlands
SM (%)21.00 ± 2.16 b19.00 ± 2.10 b18.00 ± 0.82 b18.00 ± 1.63 b45.00 ± 3.56 a***
SOM (g/kg)19.63 ± 1.65 b19.02 ± 2.20 b15.90 ± 1.64 c17.13 ± 1.47 b33.25 ± 1.95 a***
TN (g/kg)1.05 ± 0.23 a0.99 ± 0.17 b0.71 ± 0.14 c0.78 ± 0.09 c1.55 ± 0.12 a*
NO3-N (mg/L)49.62 ± 2.19 a20.06 ± 2.26 b15.36 ± 1.80 b7.75 ± 1.04 c15.28 ± 1.30 b**
AP (mg/kg)15.14 ± 0.84 a14.39 ± 0.70 a6.33 ± 0.54 c8.33 ± 0.61 b16.21 ± 1.78 a*
AK (mg/kg)265.36 ± 7.31 a198.83 ± 8.95 b176.74 ± 7.46 c171.82 ± 6.20 c278.07 ± 9.72 a*
CEC (cmol/kg)13.55 ± 0.64 b14.87 ± 0.83 a13.18 ± 0.78 b12.46 ± 0.57 b14.27 ± 0.61 ans
pH8.15 ± 0.06 b8.30 ± 0.01 a8.10 ± 0.02 b8.05 ± 0.02 b8.25 ± 0.03 ans
SC (ppt)0.79 ± 0.06 b0.88 ± 0.01 b0.67 ± 0.14 b0.71 ± 0.06 b4.17 ± 0.07 a*
Na+ (mg/L)95.25 ± 6.88 c190.94 ± 6.34 b113.40 ± 4.03 c113.25 ± 1.75 c1344.39 ± 4.97 a***
K+ (mg/L)37.92 ± 4.20 b44.04 ± 1.09 b23.35 ± 2.11 c30.34 ± 0.54 c84.50 ± 2.93 a**
Mg2+ (mg/L)37.93 ± 10.3716.70 ± 0.4625.89 ± 9.2635.37 ± 0.0764.26 ± 0.44*
Ca2+ (mg/L)128.46 ± 2.47 a107.91 ± 1.38 b132.14 ± 8.10 a105.49 ± 8.11 b122.86 ± 2.93 a*
Cl− (mg/L)76.40 ± 6.99 c102.21 ± 10.84 b55.37 ± 5.49 c189.28 ± 3.37 b1658.68 ± 9.89 a***
SO42− (mg/L)89.64 ± 2.39 b74.91 ± 2.90 b55.57 ± 2.77 b57.79 ± 0.99 b607.84 ± 3.49 a**
NO3− (mg/L)219.73 ± 1.06 a88.85 ± 5.05 b68.02 ± 5.75 b34.32 ± 2.94 c67.66 ± 3.98 b**
ns, p > 0.10; *, 0.05 < p < 0.10; **, p < 0.05; ***, p < 0.01.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zheng, X.; Tao, Y.; Wang, Z.; Kou, X.; Wang, H.; Wang, S.; Wu, D. Land-Use Types Influence the Community Composition of Soil Mesofauna in the Coastal Zones of Bohai Bay, China. Diversity 2022, 14, 1035. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/d14121035

AMA Style

Zheng X, Tao Y, Wang Z, Kou X, Wang H, Wang S, Wu D. Land-Use Types Influence the Community Composition of Soil Mesofauna in the Coastal Zones of Bohai Bay, China. Diversity. 2022; 14(12):1035. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/d14121035

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zheng, Xiaoxue, Yan Tao, Zhongqiang Wang, Xinchang Kou, Haixia Wang, Shengzhong Wang, and Donghui Wu. 2022. "Land-Use Types Influence the Community Composition of Soil Mesofauna in the Coastal Zones of Bohai Bay, China" Diversity 14, no. 12: 1035. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/d14121035

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop