Resource Legacies of Organic and Conventional Management Differentiate Soil Microbial Carbon Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-term contrasts in agricultural management can shift soil resource availability with potential consequences to microbial carbon (C) use efficiency (CUE) and the fate of C in soils. Isothermal calorimetry was combined with 13C-labelled glucose stable isotope probing (SIP) of 16S rRNA genes to test the hypothesis that organically managed soils would support microbial communities with greater thermodynamic efficiency compared to conventional soils due to a legacy of lower resource availability and a resultant shift towards communities supportive of more oligotrophic taxa. Resource availability was greater in conventionally managed soils, with 3.5 times higher available phosphorus, 5% more nitrate, and 36% more dissolved organic C. The two management systems harbored distinct glucose-utilizing populations of Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria, with a higher Proteobacteria:Actinobacteria ratio (2.4 vs. 0.7) in conventional soils. Organically managed soils also harbored notable activity of Firmicutes. Thermodynamic efficiency indices were similar between soils, indicating that glucose was metabolized at similar energetic cost. However, differentially abundant glucose utilizers in organically managed soils were positively correlated with soil organic matter (SOM) priming and negatively correlated to soil nutrient and carbon availability, respiration, and heat production. These correlation patterns were strongly reversed in the conventionally managed soils indicating clear differentiation of microbial functioning related to soil resource availability. Fresh C addition caused proportionally more priming of SOM decomposition (57 vs. 51%) in organically managed soils likely due to mineralization of organic nutrients to satisfy microbial demands during glucose utilization in these more resource deprived soils. The additional heat released from SOM oxidation may explain the similar community level thermodynamic efficiencies between management systems. Restoring fertility to soils with a legacy of nutrient limitation requires a balanced supply of both nutrients and energy to protect stable soil organic matter from microbial degradation. These results highlight the need to consider managing C for the energy it provides to critical biological processes that underpin soil health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".