Paper · 2026 · Epsilon Open Archive (Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet biblioteket (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences))

Soil microbial community differences drive variation in Pinus sylvestris physiology, productivity, and responses to elevated CO2

Hupperts, Stefan

9
claims
25
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

BackgroundSoil microbial communities can affect plant nutrient uptake, productivity, and may even confer resistance to global change. Elevated atmospheric CO2 is widely expected to stimulate plant productivity; however, this will depend on the availability of growth limiting nutrients such as nitrogen. Soil microbial communities are the main mediators of soil nitrogen cycling and should therefore play a key role in influencing plant responses to elevated CO2.ResultsTo test this, we conducted a controlled, growth chamber experiment with Pinus sylvestris to evaluate how soil microbiome variation influences plant physiology, productivity, and responses to elevated CO₂ (eCO₂; 800 ppm versus 400 ppm in the ambient treatment). Field soils were collected from six forests with varying tree growth rates and were used as an inoculant source, either sterilized or living, into a common growth medium seeded with P. sylvestris. After seven months of growth, we measured plant carbon assimilation, photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency, above- and belowground productivity, and we measured soil microbial biodiversity using DNA metabarcoding. Our findings demonstrate that seedling productivity was stimulated under eCO2 conditions and that this was supported by improved plant photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency, but only in the presence of living versus sterilized soil inoculant. The magnitude of this response was also dependent on the forest soil microbial inoculant source and was linked to a 70% increase in bacterial species richness, increased relative abundances of bacteria known to have positive effects on plant growth (e.g., Lactobacillus, Bacillus, Flavobacterium), and with a concomitant shift in saprotrophic fungal community composition and root growth. Variation in inorganic nitrogen cycling which favored the accumulation of nitrate under eCO2 was also correlated with a twofold reduction in photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency, suggesting a decoupling of nitrogen availability and assimilation efficiency with distinct implications for plant growth responses to elevated CO2.ConclusionsOur results show that soil microbial community variation directly affects P. sylvestris physiology, productivity, and responses to eCO2, and may enhance plant growth through improved nitrogen use efficiency. Surprisingly, growth with different microbial communities even more strongly impacted plant productivity than a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The soil microbiome therefore plays a key role in supporting plant nutrition and growth under ambient and eCO2 conditions, and in turn, may confer increased forest resistance to climate change.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher.

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated CO2 stimulated pine seedling productivity only with living soil inoculant.

Taxon
Pinus sylvestrisPinus sylvestrist0
Treatment
eCO2 conditionse0
Outcome
seedling productivitye0
Direction
stimulatede0
Qualifier
only in the presence of living versus sterilized soil inoculante0
Comparator
sterilized soil inoculante0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus sylvestris
Pinus sylvestris · TaxonHello, I am Bruce on Flickr · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“seedling productivity was stimulated under eCO2 conditions and that this was supported by improved plant photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency, but only in the presence of living versus sterilized soil inoculant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1173–1385 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pinus sylvestris”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–72 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated CO2 improved pine photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency only with living soil inoculant.

Taxon
Pinus sylvestrisPinus sylvestrist0
Treatment
eCO2 conditionse1
Outcome
plant photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiencye0
Direction
improvede0
Comparator
sterilized soil inoculante0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus sylvestris
Pinus sylvestris · TaxonHello, I am Bruce on Flickr · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“improved plant photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency, but only in the presence of living versus sterilized soil inoculant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1263–1385 · show in text ↑
e1

“under eCO2 conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1210–1231 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pinus sylvestris”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–72 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The magnitude of the elevated CO2 response depended on forest soil inoculant source.

Taxon
Pinus sylvestrisPinus sylvestrist0
Treatment
forest soil microbial inoculant sourcee0
Outcome
magnitude of this responsee0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus sylvestris
Pinus sylvestris · TaxonHello, I am Bruce on Flickr · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The magnitude of this response was also dependent on the forest soil microbial inoculant source”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1387–1482 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pinus sylvestris”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–72 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The response was linked to a 70% increase in bacterial species richness.

Taxon
Pinus sylvestrisPinus sylvestrist0
Treatment
forest soil microbial inoculant sourcee2
Outcome
bacterial species richnesse0
Direction
increasee0
Value
70%e0
Qualifier
magnitude of this responsee1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus sylvestris
Pinus sylvestris · TaxonHello, I am Bruce on Flickr · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“linked to a 70% increase in bacterial species richness”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1491–1545 · show in text ↑
e1

“The magnitude of this response”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1387–1417 · show in text ↑
e2

“forest soil microbial inoculant source”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1444–1482 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pinus sylvestris”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–72 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The response was linked to increased relative abundance of growth-promoting bacteria.

Taxon
Pinus sylvestrisPinus sylvestrist0
Treatment
forest soil microbial inoculant sourcee2
Outcome
relative abundances of bacteriae0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
magnitude of this responsee1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus sylvestris
Pinus sylvestris · TaxonHello, I am Bruce on Flickr · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“increased relative abundances of bacteria known to have positive effects on plant growth (e.g., Lactobacillus, Bacillus, Flavobacterium)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1547–1683 · show in text ↑
e1

“The magnitude of this response”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1387–1417 · show in text ↑
e2

“forest soil microbial inoculant source”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1444–1482 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pinus sylvestris”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–72 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The response coincided with a shift in saprotrophic fungal composition and root growth.

Taxon
Pinus sylvestrisPinus sylvestrist0
Treatment
forest soil microbial inoculant sourcee2
Outcome
saprotrophic fungal community composition and root growthe0
Qualifier
magnitude of this responsee1

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus sylvestris
Pinus sylvestris · TaxonHello, I am Bruce on Flickr · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“a concomitant shift in saprotrophic fungal community composition and root growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1694–1774 · show in text ↑
e1

“The magnitude of this response”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1387–1417 · show in text ↑
e2

“forest soil microbial inoculant source”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1444–1482 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pinus sylvestris”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inorganic nitrogen cycling under elevated CO2 favored nitrate accumulation.

Taxon
Pinus sylvestrisPinus sylvestrist0
Treatment
eCO2e0
Outcome
accumulation of nitratee0
Direction
favorede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus sylvestris
Pinus sylvestris · TaxonHello, I am Bruce on Flickr · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Variation in inorganic nitrogen cycling which favored the accumulation of nitrate under eCO2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1776–1868 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pinus sylvestris”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–72 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrate-favoring nitrogen cycling correlated with a twofold reduction in photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency.

Taxon
Pinus sylvestrisPinus sylvestrist0
Compound
nitratee0
Outcome
photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiencye0
Direction
reductione0
Value
twofolde0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus sylvestris
Pinus sylvestris · TaxonHello, I am Bruce on Flickr · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Variation in inorganic nitrogen cycling which favored the accumulation of nitrate under eCO2 was also correlated with a twofold reduction in photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1776–1955 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pinus sylvestris”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–72 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Different microbial communities affected pine productivity more strongly than doubled atmospheric CO2.

Taxon
Pinus sylvestrisPinus sylvestrist0
Treatment
different microbial communitiese0
Outcome
plant productivitye0
Direction
more strongly impactede0
Comparator
a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrationse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus sylvestris
Pinus sylvestris · TaxonHello, I am Bruce on Flickr · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“growth with different microbial communities even more strongly impacted plant productivity than a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2337–2477 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pinus sylvestris”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–72 · show in text ↑

co2 · yield · Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine)Results differ

6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

co2 · physiology: photosynthesis · Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 6 positive, 2 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.