Limitations of faunal effects on soil carbon flow: density dependence, biotic regulation and mutual inhibition

Soil animals are known to stimulate soil microbial activity and thereby to accelerate decomposition of soil organic matter. In this paper, we investigate potential limitations of soil animal effects on soil carbon flow by analysing how animal effects relate to the density of four major faunal groups. Specifically, we analyse the extent to which faunal effects are subject to biotic regulation or to mutual inhibition between groups under different levels of resource supply. extensive laboratory experiment, 96 microcosms established in three consecutive blocks were inoculated with nematodes, enchytraeids, microarthropods, and lumbricids. Each faunal group was inoculated in three densities, including combinations of groups. Introduced animal densities were within the natural range of densities in fallow soil. Bare agricultural soil and soil covered with maize litter were used as substrates. The microcosms were kept under constant conditions at 12 °C and 50% water holding capacity for 8 weeks. Soil CO2 evolution was measured daily by means of gas chromatography. effects were on an average relatively stronger in bare soil (+95% CO2; R2=0.76) than in soil with litter (+14% CO2; R2=0.40), where organic matter decomposition was seven times more intense. Higher animal densities generally led to accelerated decomposition up to three times that of the controls. However, beyond a specific density, decomposition rates stopped increasing or even declined, depending on the faunal group. In addition, animal effects were limited by mutual inhibition between groups in bare soil where effects were strong, while stimulatory interactions were prominent in the litter treatments where effects were generally weak. erpret the limitation of soil faunal effects on soil carbon flow in terms of incomplete habitat exploitation and biotic regulation. Under conditions of substrate homogeneity, such as in the bare soil treatments, animal effects were stronger, but they were limited by overexploitation. Under conditions of substrate heterogeneity, such as in the litter treatments, animal effects were limited by incomplete habitat utilisation. We assume that complementary habitat colonisation by different faunal groups in the litter treatments gave rise to positive diversity effects, but that these effects did not compensate for reduced overall habitat utilisation. We infer that a knowledge of faunal resource utilisation and of mutual inhibition of faunal groups can be exploited for ecological soil management towards stabilisation of soil organic matter.