Recovery of soil microbiota in naturally regenerating Acacia mangium ecosystems


Abstract

Forest ecosystem restoration often focuses on the recovery of tree diversity and carbon stocks, with minimal attention given to soil microbial communities. Given the essential role of soil microorganisms for ecosystem health and recovery, this lack of understanding may limit reforestation success. In this study, we address this gap by analysing the taxonomic and functional characteristics of fungal and bacterial communities in minimally managed Acacia mangium plantations, especially considering their role in carbon sequestration and ecosystem functioning. We sampled naturally regenerating A. mangium plantations aged 2, 10, and 24 years, grasslands of Imperata cylindrica as the starting condition, and remnant forests as the reference state. We identified soil fungi and bacteria taxa through high-throughput amplicon sequencing of soil environmental DNA (eDNA), targeting ITS and 16S rRNA metabarcoding markers. Our results showed that microbial community and functional groups composition differed among landcover types, although taxonomic richness did not. Bulk topsoil organic carbon, pH, and total nitrogen were key factors affecting the composition of microbial communities, especially dominant fungal phyla. Symbiotrophic fungi and copiotrophic bacteria generally increased and recovered over time, potentially enhancing C sequestration and balancing nutrient cycles. These findings demonstrate that natural regeneration in A. mangium plantations can restore soil microbial communities and their associated functions that are particularly important for climate change mitigation. Furthermore, our study highlights the effectiveness of eDNA and high-throughput sequencing in monitoring early ecosystem shifts in soil microbial communities, which could be used to guide reforestation efforts towards desired ecosystem services.
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].