A presentation by Dr. I Barois

1. 5/27/2010
What determines below ground biodiversity
in Los Tuxtlas Veracruz Mexico? Soil
quality parameters or
land use history?
I.. Barois, E. Velasquez,
P. Lavelle, S. Negrete-
Yankelevich, J. .A.
García, M.. Santos,
J.Álvarez-Sánchez, G.
Castillo-Campos, S.
Cram, C.. Fragoso,
F.Franco-Navarro,
Tajín Fuentes,
E. Martínez-Romero, E.
Meza, Miguel .A. Morón,
P. Rodríguez, P. Rojas,
V. Sosa, D.Trejo, L.
Varela, J. Bueno-
Villegas, J. Gómez and
C. Sormani
Participant Institutions Objective
1: Instituto de Ecología, A.C., apartado postal 63, Xalapa, Ver., 91000,
México. isabelle.barois@inecol.edu.mx
2: Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Fac de Agronomía, Colombia • To synthesize the results obtained in
3: Universidad Paris VI /IRD, Bondy Francia.
4: Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM. D. F., México.
the inventories
5: Instituto de Geografía, UNAM. D.F, México. 1) To evaluate which parameters of the soil
6: Programa de Fitopatología CP-Campus Montecillo. Montecillo Estado de
Fitopatología. Montecillo, determine the diversity of organisms and
México, México.
which of these organisms can be good
7: Centro de Ciencias Genómicas, UNAM. Cuernavaca, Morelos, México.
8: Facultad de Ciencias Agrícolas, Universidad Veracruzana. Xalapa,
indicators of soil quality.
Veracruz, México.
2) To observe if the land use and history
9: Hongos y Derivados, S.A. Naucalpan de Juárez Estado de México.
explain the soil biodiversity.
10: Red A.C., Oaxaca México
11: Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca Hidalgo, Mexico
FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
OF THE SOIL BIOTA
Maize Leguminous
Inventories Mesofauna
Acari & Collembola
Sampling
S li
Decomposers
Mycorrhizal
Fungi BNF
Bacterias
Phytopathogen Rhizosphere
Fungi Macrofauna Biota
– Ew
Microfauna – Termites
Fertility – Nematodes – Ants
– Coleoptera
Soil
– Diplopodes
TSBF: 2001
– Quilopodes
– Blattidae
1

2. 5/27/2010
FOREST
Biosphere Reserve of ACAHUAL
Fallow/2ndry forest
Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz
México
PASTURE MAIZE
N
Northern most
tropical humid forest
of America
Biodiversity Hot Spot
Chemical (6): pH, Na, K, Mg ,Ca
Sampling of BGBD in Los Tuxtlas and PBray.
Nov- Dic. 2003 Organic Matter (7): C, N,NH4,
NO3, litter and enzymes (Deshy,
& Feb-2005 Gluco.)
102points Physical (8): Hum., EC, Clay, Sand,
Silt, BD, RD and slope
sampled Measured in each point
Taxas encontrados en
250
Bacterias Fijadora de Nitrógeno
Morfoespecie
200 Especie
corrizicos
Inventories
Acaros
Genero
axas
150 SubFamilia
as
No. de Ta
Hongos Mic
Coleopteros
Familia
Hormigas
Results
Diplópodos
100 SuperFamilia
Nematodos
Lombrices
Chilopodo
Orden
Colembola
Termita
50
0
2

3. 5/27/2010
Biota Chemistry Physics OM
1) Principal component analysis (PCA) were Macrofauna,Colembolos
used to group the sampling points and to HFM, BFN, AntsPCA PCA PCA
PCA
identify which variables best differentiate
Earthworms,Termites
Nematodes, Chilopodos
the sites or the land uses according to soil Diplopodos,Blattidae
GISQ13
quality and to construct the general n n
indicator of soil quality (GISQ,Velasquez et SI = Σ(w.v)F1 + Σ(w.v)F2
(1,4) 1 1
al 2007)
l 2007).
Faunal Chemical Physical OM
SI SI SI SI
2) General linear models (GLM) were used to
determine whether (and in what percentage) GISQ4
current and historical land uses explain the GISQ = a1.SI Fauna+ b1SI P+ c1SI Ch+ d1SI OM …
variability in soil physical, chemical and
biological variables. Group 1 Goup2 Group3 Group 4 Group n
IndVal
Indicator species
México México
Physical Physical
F2(20.3%) 3.8 F2(20.3%) 4
-3 3.8 -3.2 4
Sites -3.3 -3.4
Lopez LM
Mateos Land use
San Fernando SF Maize M
Venustiano VC Acahual A
Carranza Pasture P
Forest F
M
LM
F1(34.1%) P A
1 1
F1(34.1%)
-1 1 -1 1
RD -1 SF RD -1
BD BD
VC
Limo Silt
Sand Sand
F
Hum% Hum%
Clay EC Clay EC
Slope Slope
P<0.01 P<0.01
México Land use 13 SubIndicators +Gradient of soil quality-
Earthworms Land use
F2(14.6%) 6.9
-8.5 2.6 México
-3.9 F2(16.1%) 4.4
-4.8 3.6
-3.4
Land use Landuse n Indicator value
average
Maize M
Forest 24 0,63
Acahual A Acahual 23 0,50
Pasture P Pasture 23 0,45
Mai z 19 0,36
Forest F
1
-1 1
-1
1
1
Native Sub-OM
Sub_Colembolos -1
Phoenicodrilus
taste
-1
Earthworms Sub_Ants
F
A F1(20.1%)
Sub-chemical
Ramiellona sp. 1 F1(17.3%) P P
F A M
Sub-physical
M
Sub_Termites
Lavellodrilus parvus Dichogaster saliens Sub_Diplopodos
Sub_earthworms
Kaxdrilus sylvicola Diplotrema sp. 1
Dichogaster bolaui Sub_Nematodes
Periscolex brachycistis
Dichogaster affinis
Pontoscolex corethrurus
Exotic Sub-<macrofauna
Sub_BNF
Earthworms
Kaxdrilus parcus Sub_AMF
Sub_Chilopodos
- Gradient of land use +
P<0.01 P<0.01
3

4. 5/27/2010
Co Inercia between soil Q indicators
and species richness in groups 4 sub I + IGQS
F1: 0.26
Fa
Ne
Ch
AM BNF
Di F
EW N Bl
Fi
Diplopods Cl F1: 0.67
Coleoptera Lo
EW native
Ch Te
Organic Matter EW E
OM
IG CO
Ho
Ants
Coleoptera Lopez Mateos 0.73
RV = 0.24; p<0.01 EW exotic
High Value of all the Indicators
San Fernando 0.65
V. Carranza 0.47
Physical Sub-Indicator Chemical Sub-Indicator
0.73
0 73 0.57
0.23
0.47
0.65 0.34
Phy S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I
Lopez Mateos 0.73 Lopez Mateos 0.73 0.57
San Fernando 0.65 San Fernando 0.65 0.34
V. Carranza 0.47 V. Carranza 0.47 0.23
Org. Mat. Sub-Indicator MacroFauna Sub-Indicators
0.67
0 67 0.68
0 68
0.47 0.63
0.45 0.75
Phy S-I Chem S-I OM S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I OM S-I MFau S-I
Lopez Mateos 0.73 0.57 0.67 Lopez Mateos 0.73 0.57 0.67 0.68
San Fernando 0.65 0.34 0.45 San Fernando 0.65 0.34 0.45 0.75
V. Carranza 0.47 0.23 0.47 V. Carranza 0.47 0.23 0.47 0.63
4

5. 5/27/2010
General Indicator of Soil Quality- 4 General Indicator of Soil Quality-13
0.63 0.64
0.36 0.36
0.49 0.49
Phy S-I Chem S-I OM S-I MFau S-I GI SQ 4 Phy S-I Chem S-I OM S-I MFau S-I GI SQ 4 GI SQ 13
Lopez Mateos 0.73 0.57 0.67 0.68 0.63 Lopez Mateos 0.73 0.57 0.67 0.68 0.63 0.64
San Fernando 0.65 0.34 0.45 0.75 0.49 San Fernando 0.65 0.34 0.45 0.75 0.49 0.49
V. Carranza 0.47 0.23 0.47 0.63 0.36 V. Carranza 0.47 0.23 0.47 0.63 0.36 0.36
ACAHUAL FOREST ACAHUAL
FOREST
S-I Phy S-I Phy
0.66 0.56
PASTURE MAIZE PASTURE MAIZE
S-I Phy S-I Phy
0.58 0.45
FOREST ACAHUAL FOREST ACAHUAL
S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I OM S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I OM
0.66 0.64 0.56 0.63 0.66 0.64 0.45 0.56 0.63 0.33
PASTURE MAIZE PASTURE MAIZE
S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I OM S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I OM
0.58 0.67 0.45 0.50 0.58 0.67 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.32
5

6. 5/27/2010
FOREST ACAHUAL FOREST ACAHUAL
S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I OM S-I MF S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I OM S-I MF S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I OM S-I MF GISQ4 S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I OM S-I MF GISQ4
0.66 0.64 0.45 0.68 0.56 0.63 0.33 0.55 0.66 0.64 0.45 0.68 0.63 0.56 0.63 0.33 0.55 0.45
PASTIZAL MAIZ PASTURE MAIZE
S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I OM S-I MF S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I OM S-I MF S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I OM S-I MF S-I Phy S-I Chem S-I OM S-I MF GISQ
0.58 0.67 0.38 0.49 0.45 0.50 0.32 0.36 0.58 0.67 0.38 0.49 0.50 0.45 0.50 0.32 0.36
GISQ4 0.36
Whole CONCLUSIONS of the
INVENTORIES
• Good estimation of the diversity of the
• In the Coinertia analysis the BNF and
studied groups
the Mycorrhizal fungi where more
• Loss of diversity with the land use change diverse in the low quality soil and their
• High change of species as there are relationship with GISQ is negative
significant d ff
f differences among sites and d • The variables from the 4 subindicator
land use which explain more the patterns are:
• A highest diversity at the level of the – The texture and bulk density
landscape – The deshydrogenase activity, C and N-total
• GISQ-4 is easily applicable and it and NO3.
discriminates well group of points, sites
and land uses.
General Linear Models
Simoneta Negrete et al in process
6

7. 5/27/2010
GLM
Variance partitioning between landscape,
current use and land use history
• Landscape: differences between ejidos
• Current use: Land use categories
(Coffee, Forest, MSB, MSB-muc, palm,
(Coffee Forest MSB MSB-muc palm
pasture, secondary, tree plantation).
• Land use history: In the last 70yrs time
spent under agriculture, agroforestry
and rest.
7

8. 5/27/2010
Conclusion
• In some tropical landscapes like Los Tuxtlas land use is
better described as a combination of current and historical
land use characteristics.
• Agrarian reforms and post-revolutionary land granting
atomised land use and generated a variety of land use
histories that should be considered when evaluating land
use intensity. Current land use categories are not enough.
• There is a cumulative impact of land use on soil biota and
fertility at least in a short historical scale (c. 70 years).
• Landscape differences remain as de prime explaining
factor, for physical and chemical characteristics of the
soils, but for BGBD current land use and land use history
are more powerful explanations.
¡Gracias!
Obrigado!
Merci!
Thank you!
Tera Makasi!
Asante Sana!
8