Modification by species diversity of the effect of soil depth heterogeneity on plant community productivity


Abstract

Background: Fine-scale heterogeneity in soil nutrient availability can enhance plant growth, but its effect across soil depth remains inadequately understood. Previous studies on soil depth gradients suggest that deeper soils are inherently more productive in herbaceous communities, a pattern closely linked to increased species diversity. Nevertheless, little is known about the interactive effects of soil depth heterogeneity and species diversity on plant community productivity.

Methods: We conducted a greenhouse experiment in which plant communities were grown under three soil treatments (homogeneous, large-patch heterogeneous, and small-patch heterogeneous) and two species diversity treatments (low and high). The community comprised twelve common herbaceous species with varying functional traits and root strategies.

Results: Different plant species exhibited varied responses to soil depth heterogeneity. Increased soil depth significantly promoted the growth of legumes and forbs, and enhanced overall community productivity. Elevated species diversity significantly affected community productivity and altered the responses of legumes and forbs to soil depth heterogeneity. Forbs grew more in large-patch heterogeneous and deeper soils within high-diversity communities, while legumes grew more in these soils within low-diversity communities. In high-diversity settings, legumes tended to avoid deep soil layers to alleviate competitive pressure from forbs. Thus, increased species diversity may trigger selection effects within the community, leading to divergent plant growth strategies and modifying the influence of soil depth heterogeneity on plant growth. However, small-patch heterogeneity at reduced scales may represent another form of habitat fragmentation in natural plant communities.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].