Fear of predators alters herbivore regulation of soil microbial community function
Data files
Jun 22, 2023 version files 3.86 KB
Abstract
Fear of predation can affect important ecosystem processes by altering the prey traits' expression that, in turn, regulates the quantity and quality of nutritional inputs to soil. Here, we aimed to assist in bridging a knowledge gap in this cascading chain of events by exploring how risk of spider predation may affect grasshopper prey performances, and the activity of various microbial extracellular enzymes in the soil. Using a mesocosms field‐experiment, we found that grasshoppers threatened by spider predation ate less, grew slower, and had a higher body carbon to nitrogen ratio. Herbivory increased activity of all microbial extracellular enzymes examined, likely due to higher availability of root exudates. Predation risk had no effect on C‐acquiring enzymes but decreased activity of P‐acquiring enzymes. We found contrasting results regarding the effect of predation on the activity of N‐acetyl‐glucosaminidase and leucine arylamidase N‐acquiring enzymes, suggesting that predation risk may alter the composition of N‐inputs to soil. Our work highlighted the importance of soil microbial enzymatic activity as a way to predict how changes in the aboveground food‐web dynamics may alter key ecosystem processes like nutritional‐cycling.
Methods
Site description and experiment design
We conducted our field experiment at Jilin Songnen Grassland Ecosystem National Observation and Research Station, Changling, China (44°45′ N, 123°45′ E). The climate in this site is semi‐arid continental and monsoon with average annual precipitation ranging from 280 to 400 mm. This system is dominated by the grass L. chinensis, and its main insect herbivore E. unicolor grasshopper. Wolf spiders are common predators of grasshoppers in this system.
We tested how the risk of spider predation regulates grasshoppers' trophic function and subsequently soil microorganism enzymatic activity and stoichiometry, by setting a randomized block experiment with three‐trophic‐level treatments: (i) plants (control), (ii) plants and grasshoppers (herbivore), and (iii) plants, grasshoppers, and spiders (predation risk; Figure 1). We constructed 10 blocks of three 0.25‐m2‐basal area, 0.9‐m‐high mesocosms covered by 0.8 mm × 1.2 mm mesh size screen. All mesocosms were constructed over naturally growing vegetation of similar composition, in which L. chinensis accounted for about 75% of the soil surface coverage. The blocks were at least 10 meters apart. Before stocking the mesocosms, we removed all naturally occurring invertebrates using a vacuum cleaner. Grasshopper density in this field site reaches a maximum of 20–30 per m2 (Zhong et al., 2014). Thus, we stocked each mesocosm with eight third-instar grasshoppers and added one wolf spider to each predation mesocosm. We glued the spider chelicerae with quick‐drying glue to prevent them from preying upon grasshoppers (Hawlena & Schmitz, 2010). Previous work in our own study system, and elsewhere have shown that spiders with glued chelicerae can remain active for more than 2 months (Barton, 2010; Hawlena et al., 2012). Our experiment lasted from 10 August to 20 September 2020.
Grasshopper feeding frequency, survival rate, growth rate, and body C:N
We conducted feeding measurements 7 days after stocking the mesocosms, to allow grasshoppers and spiders to settle within the mesocosms. We randomly selected a third‐instar E. unicolor from each mesocosm and painted a mark on its thorax to enable focal observations. The observer recorded the times of grasshopper feeding behavior (eating foliage without retracting the heat from the plants) in their most active period (07:00–09:00, 11:00–13:00, and 15:00–17:00), for a total of 6 h, and calculated total number of feeding time in 6 h as feeding frequency (Zhong et al., 2017). All grasshoppers were weighed at the beginning and end of the experiment, and the grasshopper growth‐rate was calculated as the difference between the final and initial wet weight divided by the number of days elapsed. Grasshopper survival rate was calculated as the final density divided by the initial density in each mesocosm. At the end of the experiment, we starved all surviving grasshoppers for 24 h to allow gut evacuation, and then freeze‐dried and homogenized their carcasses using MM400 ball mill (Retsch GmbH Rheinische Strabe 3642781). We used C:N:H elemental analyzer to quantify grasshoppers' body C and N content (Vario EL cube; Elementar).
Soil sampling and analysis of soil enzymatic activity
In each mesocosm, we collected five soil subsamples from 0 to 10 cm depth. The samples were thoroughly mixed to make a composite homogenous soil sample per mesocosm. We stored all samples at 4°C for 14 days and then analyzed them for microbial extracellular enzymatic activity. We measured the activity of one P-acquiring enzyme (acid phosphatase, PHO), two C-acquiring enzymes (β‐d‐Glucoside, BG; Cellobiohydrolase, CBH), and two N-acquiring enzymes (N‐Acetyl‐glucosaminidase, NAG; Leucine arylamidase, LAP), following the method described by DeForest (2009). In addition, the enzymatic stoichiometries of (BG + CBH):(NAG + LAP), (BG + CBH):PHO, and (NAG + LAP):PHO were calculated as the indicators for microbial C versus N, C versus P, and N versus P demand, respectively. Higher microbial C:N and C:P enzymatic ratios mean higher microbial C demand relative to N and P demand respectively. Higher microbial N:P enzymatic ratio represents higher microbial N demand relative to P demand (Luo et al., 2017; Waring et al., 2014).