Next Article in Journal
Enhancing Forest Structural Parameter Extraction in the Greater Hinggan Mountains: Utilizing Airborne LiDAR and Species-Specific Tree Height–Diameter at Breast Height Models
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Acid Rain and Understory Vegetation Removal on the Biological Activity of the Soils of the Cinnamomum camphora (Linn) Presl Plantation
Previous Article in Journal
Genetic Diversity and Landscape Genomics of Carya dabieshanensis (M.C. Liu and Z.J. Li) in a Heterogenous Habitat
Previous Article in Special Issue
Response of Soil Microbial Communities in Extreme Arid Deserts to Different Long-Term Management Methods
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Natural Regeneration After Severe Disturbance Affects Ecosystem Services Provision of Andean Forest Soils at Contrasting Timescales

1
Soil and Natural Resources Department, Faculty of Agronomy, University of Concepcion, Vicente Mendez 595, Chillan 3812120, Ñuble Region, Chile
2
National Agricultural Research Institute (INIA), Carillanca Station, km 10, Cajón Road, Vilcún 4880000, La Araucania, Chile
3
Institut de Recerca de la Biodiversitat (IRBio), Universitat de Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Spain
4
Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad del Alba, Av. Ejército Libertador 171, Santiago 8320000, Santiago City, Chile
5
Biocontrol Research Laboratory, University of La Frontera, Temuco 4811230, La Araucania, Chile
6
Department of Chemical Sciences and Natural Resources, Faculty of Engineering and Science, University of La Frontera, Temuco 4811230, La Araucania, Chile
7
Doctoral Program in Agronomy, Faculty of Agronomy, University of Concepcion, Vicente Mendez, 595, Chillan 3812120, Ñuble Region, Chile
8
National Technological of Mexico, Venustiano Carranza Superior Technological Institute, Puebla 73049, Mexico
9
Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forest Sciences, University of Concepción, Victoria 631, Casilla 160-C, Concepción 4030000, Biobio Region, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2025, 16(3), 456; https://doi.org/10.3390/f16030456
Submission received: 17 January 2025 / Revised: 19 February 2025 / Accepted: 21 February 2025 / Published: 4 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue How Does Forest Management Affect Soil Dynamics?)

Abstract

:
Chile holds ~50% of temperate forests in the Southern Hemisphere, thus constituting a genetic–ecological heritage. However, intense anthropogenic pressures have been inducing distinct forest structural-regeneration patterns. Accordingly, we evaluated 22 soil properties at 0–5 and 5–20 cm depths in two protected sites, with similar perturbation records but contrasting post-disturbance regeneration stages: long-term secondary forest (~50 y) (SECFORST) (dominated by Chusquea sp.-understory) and a short-term forest after disturbance (~5 y) (FADIST) within a Nothofagus spp. forest to determine the potential of these soils to promote nutrient availability, water cycling, soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration (CO2SOC), and microbiome. Results detected 93 correlations (r ≥ 0.80); however, no significant differences (p < 0.05) in physical or chemical properties, except for infiltration velocity (+27.97%), penetration resistance (−23%), SOC (+5.64%), and % Al saturation (+5.64%) relative to SECFORST, and a consistent trend of suitable values 0–5 > 5–20 cm were estimated. The SOCCO2 capacity reached 4.2 ± 0.5 (FADIST) and 2.7 ± 0.2 Mg C y−1 (SECFORST) and only microbial abundance shifts were observed. These findings provide relevant insights on belowground resilience, evidenced by similar ecosystem services provision capacities over time, which may be influenced progressively by opportunistic Chusquea sp.

1. Introduction

Terrestrial organic carbon (C) stored in soil (SOC) controls multiple scalar natural processes as ecosystem functionality (water and nutrient cycling), which are primarily mediated by microorganisms [1]. However, historically, ~132 Pg of SOC pool (8.8% of total) have been released into the atmosphere in response to human actions (greenhouse gas emissions) (SOCCO2), causing land degradation [2] and climate change [3,4,5,6], and currently accounting for a net loss trend of 0.22–0.53 Pg y−1 [7]. Notwithstanding the above, soils represent the greatest CO2SOC potential globally, and specific capacities are associated with climatic zones, individual native properties, and historical land use records [8], where deep soils (≥1 m) from temperate to cold zones and mineral fractions rich in Fe-oxides and active clays, probably fulfilling the best conditions [8,9]. Regarding most favorable ecosystems facilitating (SOCCO2), forests have a great sink potential, storing 861–967 Pg of SOC (0–1 m), encompassing up to 30% of total emissions within the pedosphere [10,11,12,13]. Particularly, temperate forests, defined as “highly-seasonal biomes, dominated by freeze-hardy woody species due to remarkable intervals of long growing and a cold winter period” [14], are distributed across 23.5–66.5° N and S latitudes, covering 19–26 % of global forest area, having a presence on all continents (except Africa), usually meet the criteria mentioned above [12,15].
The main aspects associated with the relevant CO2SOC capacity in temperate are (a) at ecosystem level: (i) constant inputs of SOC precursors (plant debris), (ii) permanent soil cover, (iii) deep-rooted systems, increasing the uptake-recycling nutrients, and (iv) suitable conditions for biological activity [16]; (b) at pedosphere level: (i) an increase in recalcitrance due to lignin-rich substrates, (ii) lowering soil temperature–moisture reducing SOC mineralization rates, (iii) the formation of stable aggregates, and (iv) mineral-associated C [9,17,18,19]; and (c) at microscopic level: (i) inputs of fresh organics (e.g., leaf/herbaceous strata litter), (ii) nutrient bioavailability processes such as organic re-synthesis, nutrient mining cycling (e.g., N, S. P, Fe, Cu) for plant development, and (iii) structural and functional microbial pools (e.g., active microorganisms and those able to restore the soil to a pre-disturbance condition), leading to re-aggregation processes mediated by biological byproducts [2,9,17,20,21].
However, forest degradation caused a decline of 3% of the global area (4128 M ha) over the last 35 y, reversing the CO2SOC processes and mechanisms previously described [22,23]. One of the most severely affected regions is South America, reaching a forest loss area of 88,803 K ha [10,24]. In addition, it is estimated that only less than 20% of temperate forests are present in the Southern Hemisphere, resulting in one of the highest levels of endemism (85% of woody species and 34% of genera, prevailing evergreen species) [12,15].
The previous scenario is critical for genetic preservation in Chile, which holds 50 and 79.5% of the total temperate forest area in the Southern Hemisphere and continental levels, respectively (33–55° S latitude, 14.41 M ha), dominated by Nothofagus spp. (pure or mixed) [12,25,26,27,28]. Local forest suppression has been subordinated to agricultural purposes, excessive logging for fuelwood, over-grazing–browsing, and the replacement by commercial plantations (e.g., Pinus radiata, Eucalyptus nitens) due to the high productivity and timber quality of these forest types (including soils) [28,29]. In response, nowadays, Chile holds 23% of the protected forest area in South America, due to extensive government and institutional efforts that have led to the implementation of land reclamation programs (including a sustainable agro-silvicultural policy framework) [12]. Nonetheless, vast derelict territories consequently undergo natural regeneration processes (e.g., secondary forest), many of them based on Andisols, which are of high agricultural importance, accounting for 50–60 of arable land [30]. The above suggests a need to evaluate the soil ecosystem services status in those areas since their inherent high CO2SOC potential is widely reported in the literature [7,31,32].
Accordingly, we aimed to compare different soil properties that are useful for establishing fertility status and the current capacity to provide ecosystem services of two contrasting time-lapse scenarios within an unmanaged post-disturbance Nothofagus sp. association forest; both scenarios are highly representative of the aforementioned context and dominant biome type across the south-central macro-zone of Chile.
We hypothesized that soil properties–ecosystem services capacities of long-term passive management have been influenced by the effects of emergent now dominant Chusquea spp. understory, particularly, generating (i) a robust microbiome and particularly decomposer communities; (ii) a greater fertility status; (iii) better physical aptitudes related to hydric conductivity; and iv) a lower annual CO2SOC capacity rate.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Study Area Description

The study was carried out at the “Ranchillo Alto” state-owned property, a 635 ha native forest that was declared “National Heritage” and a “Protected National Asset” “by the Chilean Government; it is located in the Ñuble Region (Figure 1), nearby the town of Yungay, within the biological corridor “Nevados de Chillán—Laguna del Laja”, which was designated as a “Biosphere Reserve” by UNESCO [33]. The local climate is classified as temperate Mediterranean, with average temperatures of 13.5–25 °C during the summer and a pronounced winter season from May to September, with frequent snowfall–frost events and a mean annual rainfall of over 3.000 mm [33]. Through a recognition visit and preliminary site examination (e.g., interviews with local landowners, soil sampling, pers. commun.) [34], it was determined that the area possesses a historical record of over-management–utilization of native Nothofagus spp. involving diverse detrimental activities (such as those mentioned in the previous section), causing the interruption of biomass–litter production, which is the partial to total detachment of soil cover and even topsoil, evidenced by the presence of gullies, leading to consequent massive losses of soil organic matter and nutrients (Figure 2) [21,35].
However, those processes of land degradation occurred at different spatial–temporal scales that do not always agree with the government–social policies implemented to cease them, and (if this is the case), nor do the actions implemented for its reclamation (e.g., agroforestry systems, conservation silviculture) [29,35], or, in the absence of these, different timeline patterns of natural regeneration (e.g., passive management), leading to a complex mosaic of ecological–vegetational conditions [33].
Accordingly, we evaluated two temporal-contrasting sectors within the derived secondary forest, both meeting natural regeneration/no history of post-disturbance management and a similar land degradation record. A description of each condition is provided as follows (Table 1).
The soils were classified as medial, amorphic, and mesic Typic Haploxerands within the “Santa Barbara” series with an Ap/A/AB/Bw/BC/C sequence, according to the Soil Survey Staff (2022) [37] and Stolpe (2006) [38].

2.2. Soil Sampling and Characterization

To analyze soil properties under different post-disturbance conditions, we collected soil samples from two distinct forest sites: a long-term secondary forest (SECFORST) and a recently disturbed area (FADIST). These samples allow us to compare how soil chemistry, microbiology, and physics vary over time. In January 2020, three composite soil samples (2 kg each) were taken from three representative plots (1.33 ha each) at two depths: 0–5 cm in triplicate (n = 36), which represents the most biologically active soil layer, and 5–20 cm, where deeper-rooted microbial communities and chemical interactions occur. This depth selection ensures that we capture key soil processes occurring at different strata.

2.2.1. Physical Trials

To assess how soil structure changes over time, we measured different physical properties that influence water retention, root penetration, and overall soil stability. These properties help determine whether the soil is improving or degrading after disturbance, which is crucial for forest recovery. The following tests were performed: (i) Bulk density (BD) measures how compacted the soil is, which affects root growth and water movement. A denser soil can limit plant development and microbial activity. We determined BD by extracting soil cores (211 cm3) and drying them at 105 °C until reaching a constant weight; (ii) soil particle density (PD), estimated by the pycnometer method (Pobel, Gay-Lussac pycnometer with thermometer 10–35 °C/0.2 °C; frosted 10/19, 50 mL, Madrid, Spain) [39]; (iii) net pore space (POR), which was calculated from BD and PD values:
POR = [1 − (BD/PD)] × 100;
(iv) infiltration rate-velocity (INFV), unsatured (k), which was tested utilizing an infiltrometer model Mini Disk Infiltrometer S (Pullman, WA, USA), where the K value (cm day−1) was estimated according to Zhang [40], through cumulative infiltration measurements; (v) water holding capacity (WHC) was estimated according to Zagal et al. [41], placing samples into cones previously sealed at the bottom at 1:2 soil–water ratio for 12 h. Therefore, the tape was cautiously perforated in order to drain the formed solution while it was collected in plastic bottles and its volume was then measured; (iv) water-stable aggregates (WSA) (%) were estimated by the Kemper and Rosenau [42] method, which consisted of sieving (0.250 mm) each sample, then immersing them into an aluminum capsule containing distilled water for 3 min (at 35 rep min−1) by using an Eijkelkamp Agrisearch Equipment (Giesbeek, The Netherlands), and the resulting dispersed soil was dried at 105C, while the remaining soil was placed into another aluminum capsule containing sodium hexametaphosphate (2 g L−1) for 15 min (35 rep min−1), and the dispersed soil was dried at 105 °C. Finally, samples for both procedures were weighed to calculate their ratio/percentage in comparison with that of the original sample, and (vii) penetration resistance (PENR) was estimated using a penetrometer model Soil Compaction Tester Dickey–John (Auburn, IL, USA), where a total of 60 measurement points were established by longitudinal transects to ensure representativeness.

2.2.2. Chemical Trials

Chemical analyses were performed according to methods compiled by Sadzawka et al. [43] at the Agricultural Research Institute of Chile (INIA-Quilamapu, Chillán, Chile). After the air drying procedure and extraction of a <2 mm fraction from the samples, particular analytical methods were conducted as follows: pH was determined potentiometrically in water (pH-H2O) a 1:2.5 ratio (HI 4211, Hanna Instruments, Smithfield, RI, USA); NH4+ and NO3 were analyzed by KCl extraction (2M) for 1 h, then filtered prior to determination by automated colorimetry by using an autoanalyzer (segmented flux spectrophotometer, Skalar, Breda, The Netherlands); P Olsen P was determined using 0.5 M NaHCO3 at pH 8.5, and therefore estimated by the Murphy and Riley method and turbidimetry; K+, Ca2+, and Mg2+ by an extraction with 1 mol/L ammonium acetate solution at pH 7.0 and determination by spectrophotometry atomic absorption (969, Unicam, Ilminster, UK); effective cation exchange capacity (ECEC), which was determined by the sum of Ca+ Mg + K + Na+ Al; S by an extraction with dihydrogen solution calcium phosphate 0.01 mol/L and turbidimetric determination; and exchangeable aluminum (AlEXCH) was analyzed by extraction with potassium chloride solution 1 mol/L and determination by spectrophotometry atomic absorption (969, Unicam, Ilminster, UK), whereas percent aluminum saturation (% AlSAT) was determined by the following formula:
% AlSAT = (AlEXCH/ECEC)*100
where % AlSAT is aluminum saturation, AlEXCH is exchangeable aluminum and ECEC is effective cation exchange capacity.
The total N and SOC contents were determined by dry combustion (Leco CN-2000, macro-analyzer, LECO Corporation, Saint Joseph, MI, USA) [44] at the Soil and Natural Resources Laboratory (Faculty of Agronomy, University of Concepción).
In addition, SOC stock was estimated by
SOC stock = H × BD × SOC × 100
where H is the soil depth (cm); BD is bulk density (g cm−3); and SOC is total SOC content (g kg−1).

2.2.3. Molecular Microbiome Analysis

Samples consisting of 10 g of soil were taken from each site at 0–5 and 5–20 cm, sealed in plastic bags, and transported within coolers for later analysis. To analyze the microbial communities in the soil, we extracted DNA from each sample. DNA extraction isolates genetic material from bacteria and fungi, allowing us to identify their diversity and functions. We used a Macherey Nagel soil DNA extraction kit (Macherey Nagel Labs, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s protocol, ensuring high-quality DNA for sequencing. The DNA was verified by electrophoresis in an agarose gel, according to Brody and Kern [45], and the concentration was evaluated using a Thermo Scientific NanoDrop™ 3300 Spectrophotometer. DNA samples were merged (from triplicate), lyophilized, and stored for further sequencing. To combine multiple primers from a single genomic DNA extraction, a Fluidigm technology technique was performed according Mallot et al. [46], in order to minimice PCR errors and cross. For that purpose, the following primers were selected: Bacteria F515 (5′-GTGYCAGCMGCCGCGGTAA-3′) and 806R (5′-GGACTACNVGGGTWTCTAAT-3′); Eukarya: Euk1391f (5′-GTACACACCGCCCGTC-3′) and EukBr (5′-TGATCCTTCTGCAGGTTCACCTAC-3′); and Fungi: ITS3 (5′-GGACTACVSGGGTATCTAAT-3′)–ITS4 (5′-TCCTCCGCTTATTGATATGC-3′).
Sequencing was performed using a single 2 × 250 Illumina Hiseq2000 run. Every single sample was analyzed with the dada2 package (v1.11.3) in R (v3.4.4). To ensure high-quality sequence data, a rigorous quality control process was performed following the standard Mothur pipeline. Low-quality bases and ambiguous sequences were filtered using the screen.seqs and filter.seqs commands, applying strict thresholds to remove sequencing artifacts. Chimeric sequences were identified and removed using chimera.vsearch, ensuring only high-confidence reads were retained for downstream analysis. Paired-end reads were merged using the make.contigs command, which aligns overlapping sequences based on quality scores to generate accurate consensus sequences. This step minimizes sequencing errors and ensures the reliability of the assembled reads before taxonomic classification and community analysis. Taxonomic identification was carried out using the GTDB database (release 202) for bacteria, the PR2v5 database for Eukarya, and the UNITE ITS database for fungi (v209). For the subsequent analyses, the microeco package in the R environment was employed. Specifically, we calculated the relative abundance of ASVs in each sample and conducted a community analysis, encompassing observed composition and alpha-diversity and beta-diversity indices. Following this, functional profiles were generated using a Functional Annotation of Prokaryotic Taxa (FAPROTAX) [47] for bacterial and fungal traits for fungi [48]. This tool facilitates the prediction of the functional roles of microorganisms based on their taxonomic information and offers insights into the functional potential of the microbial community. As environmental factors and microbial functions can be generally applied to explain microbial community structure and assembly, we correlated the diversity indices and functional potential with the environmental variables using Spearman’s correlation method.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

To determine whether soil properties differed significantly between SECFORST and FADIST, we used statistical tests (‘ARTool’ package [49]) to compare their physical, chemical, and microbial characteristics. By applying non-parametric and correlation analyses, we identified patterns in how soil recovers after disturbance. In all cases, significant differences were considered with a p < 0.05 significance level. All statistical analyses and graphs were performed using RStudio Statistical Software (V4.1.0, the RCore Team 2021).
To compare microbial taxa, we used non-parametric statistical tests due to the non-normal distribution of abundance data. Specifically, taxa abundances were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test, which allows for comparisons across multiple groups without assuming normality. When significant differences were found, pairwise comparisons were conducted using Dunn’s test with Bonferroni correction to control for multiple testing. This approach ensures robust statistical inference while accounting for the distributional characteristics of microbial abundance data.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Physical Properties

Physical results are presented in Table 2, showing no significant differences (p < 0.05), except for INFVk (SECFORST > FADIST) and PENRES (FADIST > SECFORST), both presumably related to greater SOC contents and the associated biological processes in SECFORST. The INFVk averaged +4.6 cm d−1 in SECFORST condition, denoting possible differences in internal soil architecture by evolution over the time period of ~45 y since the last disruptive event.
With respect to PENRES, the high mechanical and animal loads in the recent past within FADIST have caused compaction exceeding critical levels for plant development (≥300 psi) [50], which can be evidenced in the area by bare soil patches and the presence of gullies. However, a decrease of 33.4 psi was observed in FADIST (0–5 cm) in relation to the 5–20 cm depth, suggesting a significant effect (p < 0.05) of bioturbation root developed to reverse compaction itself after 5 y, whilst the −100 psi difference between SECFORST and FADIST (0–5 cm) mirrors these bioactive effects.
However, a numeric positive trend was observed in the upper depth for the properties WHC, BD, and PD in both FADIST and SECFORST and POR and WSA in SECFORST and PENRES in FADIST, which is directly related to water retention–supply capacity. In relation to total depth (0–20 cm), we observed a net decrease in INFVk (26.52%), WSA (2.8%), PD (0.5%), and POR (2.4 %) (FADIST < SECFORST), contrary to BD (7.0), WHC (3.08), and PENRES (23.08 %) (FADIST > SECFORST).
The WSA decline in FADIST may also be influenced by the progressive depletion of Ca2+/native lack in Andisols, which is considered the most relevant inorganic binding agent (e.g., clay–polyvalent cation–SOC aggregation mechanisms) [22,51].
Both BD and PD showed typical values for volcanic soils (BD ≤ 1 g cm−3) [52], which is intrinsically linked to the physical high internal porosity of parent material (e.g., allophane) [31,53]. Consequently, the estimated POR values (Equation (1)) clearly exceeded the typical values (>40) [52], which is in compliance with the high WHC observed, globally promoting water cycling–bioavailability [54].

3.2. Chemical Properties

Chemical properties resume in Table 3, showing significant variations (p < 0.05) only between SOC and AlSAT among FADIST-SECFORST and depths comparisons. However, other significant differences were detected between the comparisons as follows: (i) FADIST-SECFORST:—pH, N, and AlEXCH varied; (ii) similar depths—Mg2+ and ECEC; (iii) FADIST (0–5) and SECFORST (5–20) depths—NO3 and Ca2++, (iv) depths in FADIST with respect to the SECFORST condition (which did not vary between depths K and S, (v) 0–5 depths of both FADIST and SECFORST—P+ and (vi), FADIST-SECFORST, or depths: C:N and NH4+. In addition, as occurred with the physical properties, better chemical-fertility conditions were generally observed for the 0–5 cm depth, except for AlEXCH, AlSAT, N (only for FADIST), and S (only for SECFORST).
When comparing the main percentage variations from significantly different properties (p < 0.05) between FADIST and SECFORST (0–20 depth), the following was estimated: NO3 (+31.17% in FADIST), K+ (+62.91% in SECFORST), Ca2+ (+46.33% in FADIST), S (+58.03% in SECFORST), ECEC (+22.87% in FADIST), and potential toxicity with AlEXCH (+61.91% in SECFORST) and AlSAT (+83.65% in SECFORST).
The implications and effects of the concentrations observed are described as follows:
(i) pH values are adequate for plant development in all cases [55] and the ranges observed (5.86 to 6.1) could be attributable to the high precipitation local regime (≥3000 mm y−1), native basic poor volcanic materials, and desilication processes [31], and the more acidic values in SECFORST are due to slight shifts in precipitation patterns (north > south) [54,56]; (ii) the high SOC concentrations may be due to the particular mechanisms of SOC preservation in volcanic soils described in Section 1 (e.g., Al-SOC complexation, extracellular enzymes sorption, occlusion of organics) [7,17,31,32,57,58]. However, specific differences in SOC contents cycling between FADIST and SECFORST can be related to the possible influence of Chusquea sp., contributing to more labile SOC and rich lignin substrates exerted by the high tree density for SECFORST [59,60], and the presence of pyrogenic C in FADIST as a remnant of site historical use, which was evidenced by charcoal fragments, which has been accounted up to 5% of total SOC in national forests [61], and these materials are also able to neutralize pH values due to their diverse functional (e.g., COO–, CaCO3, PO43−) [53]; (iii) the N differences may be explained by the massive presence of Chusquea sp., leading to an increase in total-available N coupled with N-NO3 ratios, our results are in concordance with Pérez et al. (2019) [59], who studied a Laureliopsis philippiana (Monimiaceae) forest in Chiloé, Chile, which was logged for 10 y of having understory strata dominated by Chusquea sp. However, N uptake by Nothofagus individuals readily counteracted this effect, which could also explain the lower NO3 compared to FADIST, which in turn had a less dense understory. The lower numerical NH4+ levels in FADIST indicate a greater demand by vigorous understory herbaceous strata, which uptake this bioavailable N species due to the minor uptake energetic cost compared to NO3 [62]. Regarding C:N ratios, numerical differences may be related to limiting N bioavailability and the presence of recalcitrant C and low substrate quality; (iv) the low critical P levels observed under all criteria correspond to typical volcanic soils due to the high PO43 fixation of at least 70% [63,64]; however, the significant differences (p < 0.05) between 0 and 5 cm depths may be related to greater nutrient cycling in SECFORST; and (v) the S values were under adequate levels under all criteria; however, the FADIST < SECFORST pattern observed, near to the lower fertile limit (<1 mg kg−1) [65], suggests a deeper and well-established root system by both Nothofagus obliqua and Chusquea sp. in SECFORST and a greater uptake-mining by root systems in FADIST, along with a possible SO42-retention/leaching processes exerted by charcoal fragments having anion exchange capacity [66], and percolation by competition with NO3 for interchange sites [67].
(vi) Regarding basic cations, the critical deficiencies of K, Ca2++, and Mg2+ could be related to three main mechanisms: (a) soil solution percolating due to high local precipitation regime and suitable native hydraulic–structural properties [31,54], (b) uptaking for overall metabolic processes, (c) desilication, leading to a progressive lowering on cation concentrations [17], and/or (d) higher soil organic matter content and nutrient cycling [55], as in the case of K (SECFORST > FADIST ), where, however, the higher Ca2+ values in FADIST may be related to the high specific area of the present pyrogenic materials (50–≥500 m2 g−1) [68]; (vii) the ECEC values ranged from moderate in all criteria, except for SECFORST (0–5 cm) corresponding to an adequate level (>6.27 cmol kg−1) [65], which could be related to the more developed deep root systems in SECFORST of both Chusquea sp. and Nothofagus obliqua mining nutrients to depths greater than 5 cm, whether they can compete for nutrients or not; and (viii) the variables AlEXCH and AlSAT, expressing potential toxic conditions for plants, showed adequate values in FADIST, indicating the effect of liming practices along the total depth studied (0–20 cm), whereas moderate AlEXCH and moderate AlSAT levels were determined in all conditions (except for SECFORST 5–20 cm depth, critical). However, in all cases, AlEXCH varied significantly between the depths of both FADIST and SECFORST, expressing a lesser capacity at lower depths to form Al–organic complexes due to the decreasing SOC content [69]. Finally, the higher absolute values observed at depth 0–5 (except for S in FADIST and desirably in the Al-related variables), suggest a propensity for the development/thickening of A horizon–SOC stock enlargement and the associated direct effects in terms of fertility status and ecosystem services provision.

3.3. Soil Organic C Sequestration (COqSOC)

According to earlier research in areas near our study site (Dube, pers. Commun.) [34], temporal variations in C content and stocks could be estimated at total depth (0–20 cm) and the relative temporal increment or decrease rates (Table 4). The carbon concentration and SOC stock were greater at SECFORST; however, larger CO2SOC was estimated at FADIST. Total variations on SOC stocks from the 6 y time lapse were 26.1 and 15.96 Mg SOC ha−1 for FADIST and SECFORST, respectively.
These positive differences on SOC stocks reaching +21.3 and +16.5 Mg ha−1 y−1, (2014–2020 period) for FADIST and SECFORST, respectively, resulted in the CO2SOC potentials expressed in Table 4. In consequence, a +1.48 Mg SOC ha y−1 was estimated for FADIST, compared to SECFORST, despite similar SOC % concentrations. This can be explained by the following: In SECFORST, the particular role of Chusquea sp. on soil fertility is of major relevance, since its chemical characteristics result in up to 67.2% of alpha cellulose + hemicellulose and only 13.7% of lignin content, reaching a height of 2.0 m and a density of 290 kg m3 [70], implying a potential massive input of labile SOC (glucose-based), facilitating its rapid mineralization, not only by their chemical nature per se, but also by their effect in reactivating nutrient mining processes by decomposers of the anterior organic matter (priming effect), resulting in limited CO2SOC rates [20].
In the particular scenario of FADIST, and despite the significantly lower tree density, this condition showed higher CO2SOC capacity, which can be related to the following factors: (i) C inputs derived from the debris of emergent vegetation (understory and herbaceous strata), (ii) presumably higher SOC–metal (Fe3+, Al3+) complexation potentials than SECFORST, (iii) an appreciable enrichment of energy-rich reduced SOC residues (aromatics) derived from previous ignition events and practices (wildfires and agricultural slash-and-burn) resulting in the most stable recalcitrant SOC pool (centennial–millennial mean residence time), and (iv) because it is located in an area of accumulation (Section 2.1).
These findings are comparable with data reported by Ortiz et al. [71], who estimated annual SOC increases of 7.5, 4.8, and 1.6 Mg ha−1 y−1 in nearby silvopastoral systems based on Nothofagus obliqua to our study sites at 3 different tree densities of 134, 60, and 258 stems ha−1, respectively. Similarly, Ortiz et al. [72] reported CO2SOC of 5.50 and 5.48 Mg C y−1 in two conterminous agroforestry systems corresponding to silvopasture under N. obliqua and N. dombeyi of a tree density of 173.3 stems ha−1 (133.3:40, respectively) and an agroforest growing oats (Avena sativa)-vetch (Vicia atropurpurea) associations below N. obliqua at a tree density of 446.6 stems ha−1. The authors concluded that these systems promote nutrient cycling, SOC accumulation, and a progressive desirable increase/decrease in physical and chemical properties, except those that are closely related to the intrinsic characteristics of volcanic soils (for example, P) and at the ecosystem level (e.g., total and bioavailable N). In addition, Muñoz et al. [73] estimated SOC increases of 33.1 to 35.5 Mg ha−1 in a monoculture agro-system under no-tillage after 16 y in the same soil series as our study sites. In different managed forests (e.g., plantations) developing over Ultisols from Sothern China, Li et al. [74] did not find variations in SOC associated with minerals, but critical changes in SOC related to stable aggregates. The above suggests that well-planned and operational productive management may be arguably better alternatives for land reclamation than the mere cessation of human activity in degraded native forests of south-central Chile, not only as a better CO2SOC option, but in order to control the occurrence and dominance of opportunistic species that represent a potential threat, such as (i) underbrush for farming proposes, (ii) a habitat of Oligoryzomys longicaudatus, a vector of the hantavirus Bunyaviridae of major medical importance, (iii) a causal agent of wildfires during summer seasons as considerable dry biomass aboveground stores, and (iv) impeding the re-consolidation of the previous understory and therefore of the original ecosystem biocomplexity and/or long-term sustainable management of forests such as agroforestry (for example, [35,75,76,77,78]) and planted forests [79].

3.4. Interactions Among the Analyzed Soil Properties

A total of 93 relations (r ≥ 0.80) were observed among multiple variables (including inverse), of which 37, 11, and 45 occurred between chemical (4 inverse), physical (5 inverse), and 45 involving physicochemical properties (12 inverse), respectively (Figure 3). pH was the most influential property correlated with the other nine, explaining, for instance, their inverse relationship with AlEXCH and AlSAT (r = 98 and r = 89, respectively). SOC was correlated with N availability (r = 98) and exerted an influence on other nutrients (for example, P+, K, Mg2+); however, it did not meet the r ≥ 0.80 criteria.
The C:N ratio clearly influenced both N occurrence and availability (r = 97, r = 75, and r = 86) for total N, NH4+, and NO3, respectively, as well as the nutrient parameters Ca2+, Mg2+, and ECEC. Interactions between physical properties, including INFVk, were well correlated with POR and WSA (r = 98 and 85), respectively, and inversely correlated with BD (r = −98) and PENRES (r = −96); POR was correlated with WSA and PENRES (r = 98 and r = 85), and WSA had an inverse correlation with PENRES (r = −82). With respect to physicochemical interactions, WHC was well correlated with the C:N ratio (r = 92) and nutrient levels (r = 83, r = 81, r = 95) for Ca2+, Mg2+, and ECEC, respectively.
Our physical results are consistent with those reported by Ortiz et al. [71], who reported in conterminous plots under silvopastoral management correlations of (r ≥ 0.8) for %WSA, POR, and INFV, indicating suitable hydraulic conditions in these soils. In relation to chemical properties, our results are contrary to those reported by Ortiz et al. [71] and Ortiz et al. [72] (both under agroforestry), where SOC was the core property, which correlated to nutrient availability; in our case, the presumably higher pH values tend to drive such a role.

3.5. Soil Microbial Communities

The metabarcoding results showed that changes in soil microbial communities in degraded (FAD) and non-degraded (SEC) soils at two depths (20 and 5 cm) revealed distinct patterns in the relative abundance and diversity of microbial classes (Figure 4), affecting both prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms. However, the eukaryotic 18S rRNA sequences obtained from the study fields were predominantly composed of fungi. Therefore, we focused on the analysis of bacterial communities based on 16S rRNA sequences, and fungal communities based on ITS-specific sequences.
For bacterial communities, the data showed that Alphaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria were dominant in bacterial communities across all samples, with notable variations between depths and soil types. In deeper soils (20 cm), there was a higher relative abundance of Acidobacteria, especially in non-degraded soils (SEC). Conversely, degraded soils (FAD) exhibited a higher presence of Bacilli and Thermoleophilia, indicating a potential adaptation to altered soil conditions due to degradation. Several authors have reported that the presence of Bacilli, known for their ability to form endospores, can help them survive harsh conditions, including soil degradation [80,81]. Thermoleophilia, a class of bacteria within the phylum Actinobacteria, is typically found in hot and nutrient-poor environments, indicating its adaptability to stress conditions [82]. The bar plots (Figure 4A) showed that the dominant class in both SECFORST and FADIST was Alphaproteobacteria, followed by Gammaproteobacteria, which was more represented in SECFrost 5–20. Thermoleophilia was particularly abundant at 0–5 m in both FADIST and SECFORST (13.6 and 14.2%, respectively), while Acidobacterieae was more abundant at depth, representing 7.7% of the community at FADist and 15.7% at SECFrost, a similar distribution pattern was observed for Dormibacteria. Viciniamibacteria was more abundant at the FADist site at both depths.
When analyzing the bacterial community structure, we observed that the representation of Dormibacteriaceae and Steroidobacteriaceae negatively correlates with the Mg2+ concentration, while other families as Solirubrobacteriaceae strongly correlated with PD, P, and C:N. Pyrimonadaceae was positively correlated with pH but negatively correlated with total S, Al, INFV, and K. Finally, UBA2999 negatively correlates with total N (Figure A1).
The bacterial community composition displayed a similar representation as those reported by Navarrete et al. [21], who observed within the bacterial community a prevailing occurrence of Proteobacteria (45.35 ± 0.89%), Acidobacteria (20.73 ± 1.48%), Actinobacteria (12.59 ± 0.34%), and Bacteroidetes (7.32 ± 0.36%). Among Proteobacteria, the most abundant Alphaproteobacteria corresponded to Bradyrhizobium. Bacteria of this genus penetrate the roots of many legume species, producing root nodules in which N fixation occurs. Symbiotic N fixation is most important in forestry, where trees are closely associated with many wild, herbaceous legumes [83]. It has also been demonstrated that soil pH and soil C:N ratios significantly vary with soil microbial composition [84]. In our work, Pyrinomonadaceae was strongly correlated with pH, while Solirubrobacteraceae was strongly correlated with C:N, as well as with total P. Both pH and C:N were heavily influenced by symbiotic N2 fixation. Recent research has revealed a link between the phosphate solubilization capacity and increased potential for polysaccharide hydrolysis and carbohydrate metabolism. This unique link strongly corresponds to the positive relationship between the population density of PSB and available dissolved organic carbon in the soil [85]. In our work, Pyrinomonadaceae strongly correlated with pH, while Solirubrobacteraceae strongly correlated with C:N, but also with total P. Both the pH and the C:N are heavily influenced by symbiotic N2 fixation. Recent research has revealed a link between the phosphate solubilization capacity and increased potential for polysaccharide hydrolysis and carbohydrate metabolism (Figure A1). This unique link corresponds strongly to the positive relationship between the population density of PSB and available dissolved SOC [85].
For fungal communities, Figure 4B displays a significant shift in composition between depths and soil types. The phyla Ascomycota and Basidiomycota were dominant in both FADIST and SECFORST. The topsoil layer (0–5 cm) was dominated by Ascomycota (49% and 50% of the fungal community) and Basidiomycota (50–49% of the fungal community). In the second soil layer (5–20 cm), both FADIST and SECFORST were also dominated by Ascomycota, accounting for 54% and 74% of the fungal community, respectively, along with Basidiomycota (45% and 25% of the fungal community, respectively). In non-degraded soils, classes such as Agaricomycetes and Leoiomycetes were more prevalent, suggesting a rich saprotrophic community. In degraded soils, there was a marked increase in Dothideomycetes in the second soil layer (5–20 cm), which could be associated with altered organic matter composition and nutrient availability. Interestingly, the soils of the second layer exhibited a lower diversity of fungi than the non-degraded soils. This could indicate the influence of agronomic management practices and the negative effects of degradation on soil nutrient cycling [86,87,88].
The functional analysis using FAPROTAX (Figure 5) highlights key in silico processes occurring in these soils. Soil depth and degradation status significantly influence the structure and functional potential of microbial communities. Non-degraded soils, particularly at greater depths, support more diverse and functionally rich microbial communities, which are crucial for maintaining soil health and ecosystem stability. Degraded soils, on the other hand, exhibit a shift towards less diverse and more pathogenic microbial communities, along with a potential reduction in key nutrient cycling processes. This study underscores the importance of soil management practices in preserving soil microbial diversity and functionality, which are essential for sustainable ecosystem services. On the other hand, non-degraded soils exhibit a higher diversity of saprotrophic fungi, which play a crucial role in decomposing complex organic matter. This is consistent with the higher organic matter content typically found in non-degraded soils. However, degraded soils have a higher representation of fungal pathogens and mycorrhizal fungi, possibly reflecting a stressed environment in which plants are more susceptible to diseases and rely heavily on symbiotic relationships for nutrient acquisition.
We also observed a strong partitioning of the functions related to the soil properties (Figure 5C,D, Appendix A). The sulfur cycle was strongly represented when PENRES, BD, pH, and NO3 were higher. In addition, N-related processes, such as denitrification and aerobic ammonia oxidation, were more represented when the concentrations of Ca, Mg, and WHC were higher. On the other hand, methanol oxidation, metanothrophy, ureolysis, and photoheterotrophy were more represented when available K, K total, and SOC were higher.
In bacterial communities, deeper, non-degraded soils showed enhanced capacities for nitrogen fixation and sulfur cycle processes, such as sulfite respiration and sulfate reduction. This indicates a robust biogeochemical cycling capacity, possibly supporting a more stable ecosystem [89]. Degraded soils, particularly at 5 cm depth, show increased potential for fermentation and aerobic chemoheterotrophy, suggesting a shift towards more anaerobic and less efficient energy-yielding processes, likely due to soil compaction and reduced oxygen availability. Fungal functional profiles (Figure 5D) also differ significantly between soil types and depths. The aerobic chemoheterothrophy was the most represented energy source. The N fixation appears to be more represented at the FADIST, as well as the dark hydrogen oxidation. Other metabolisms represented corresponded to metanothrophy sulfite respiration and sulfate oxidation, iron respiration, and aerobic ammonia oxidation.
Microbial communities play a fundamental role in soil health, influencing nutrient cycling, organic matter decomposition, and overall ecosystem resilience [2,90]. The observed differences in bacterial and fungal composition between FADIST and SECFORST soils suggest that post-disturbance microbial dynamics may drive long-term soil recovery [91]. The dominance of Alphaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria, known for their roles in organic matter decomposition and nitrogen cycling, indicates potential microbial contributions to nutrient turnover [92,93]. Conversely, the higher presence of Acidobacteria in deeper soils suggests microbial adaptation to resource-limited conditions, which may affect carbon stabilization processes over time [94].
Additionally, the shifts in fungal communities, particularly the balance between Ascomycota and Basidiomycota, highlight potential changes in decomposition pathways that could influence soil organic matter persistence [95]. These microbial trends align with broader ecological resilience frameworks, where community stability and functional redundancy are key indicators of a system’s ability to recover from disturbance [96]. The functional analysis further supports this perspective, as degraded soils showed increased microbial metabolic activity related to stress adaptation, while non-degraded soils maintained a more diverse functional profile, reinforcing their potential for long-term stability [97]. Understanding these microbial shifts is critical for assessing the trajectory of soil health in post-disturbance ecosystems. Future studies should further explore the long-term implications of these microbial dynamics in soil carbon storage and nutrient cycling, providing a more comprehensive view of their ecological impact [98].
Further research is necessary in terms of similar tests on different biomes-passive management, temporal variations in tested properties in other secondary Nothofagus sp. forests, as well as greater depths of present studies sites in order to elucidate the effects of both systems on the soil profile, as well as the variations in their physical, chemical, and biological properties, taking into account that this study seeks to be an approximation to these conditions widely distributed at national level.

4. Conclusions

Our study highlights that post-disturbance passive management of native Nothofagus forests in south-central Chile had similar effects on nutrient status, physical aptitudes for water cycling–plant utilization, a decline of soil carbon sequestration rates (1.48 Mg SOC ha−1 y−1), and shifts only on abundance of soil microbiome for a ~45 y period. Such edaphic proximity could be attributed to three concurrent factors, the dominance of Chusquea sp., which is a widespread regional opportunistic genre, able to inhibit understory biocomplexity, transitioning SECFORST into to a more dynamic SOC system, the SOC and nutritional residual effects of pyrogenic materias and recent agricultural activities in FADIST and the overall influence of disctintive mineral fraction of volcanic soils on nutrient availability-limitations and hydraulic properties. In addition, these soils exhibit remarkable resilience traits, since a generalized upper desirable level (at 0–5 cm depth) of most variables was analyzed, despite being statistically significant (p < 0.05), a trend also observed in the SECFORST > FADIST comparison. Consequently, an a priori scarification processes that promote ecosystem recovery (>25% of surface area) is highly recommended, because, although Chusquea sp. promotes soil protection (e.g., soil cover, pedogenesis), it impedes ecosystem recovery by setting severe limitations to original regeneration patterns. In the case of productive management, agroforestry techniques are very suitable, since in a direct comparison between natural regeneration vs. agroforestry systems established under similar conditions, the latter also has great social and ecological advantages, potentially serving as ecotones and/or major hillside production systems. Knowledge gaps involve seasonal and forest evolution in relation to robust metagenomics and belowground carbon dynamics studies (including pyrogenic) coupled with Chusquea sp. occurrence in order to discriminate the effective C stabilization (CO2SOC).

Author Contributions

J.O.: conceptualization, investigation, methodology, data curation, software, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, and writing—review and editing; M.P.: conceptualization, methodology, validation, data curation, and funding acquisition; P.N.: methodology, data curation, formal analysis, software, validation, visualization, and writing; C.H.-C.: methodology, data curation, formal analysis, software, validation, visualization, writing—review and editing, and funding acquisition; R.E.G.J.: investigation, validation, visualization, and writing—review and editing; R.R.: data curation, formal analysis, methodology, and writing—review and editing; A.M.: data curation, methodology, software, validation, and visualization; C.R.: investigation, data curation, methodology, and validation; W.E.: methodology, formal analysis, visualization, writing—review and editing; R.P.-K.: visualization, data curation, and formal analysis; E.Z.: validation, writing—review and editing, project administration, and funding acquisition; N.S.: conceptualization, supervision, validation, writing—review and editing, and project administration; M.S. (Mauricio Schoebitz): formal analysis, methodology, and writing—review and editing; M.S. (Marco Sandoval): data curation, formal analysis, methodology, validation, and visualization; F.D. (Francis Dube): conceptualization, writing—review and editing, project administration, and funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Concurso VRID Multidiscliplinaria (UdeC), no. 219.142.040-M and CONAF (Fondo de Investigación del Bosque Nativo), no. 001/2014.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere thanks to the staff of the Ranchillo Alto Research Forest, administered by the Faculty of Forest Sciences at the University of Concepción. We thank the Agroecology laboratory of INIA (Quilamapu) and, in particular, Cecilia Céspedes, for the support provided for this research, as well as the Soil and Environment Research Laboratory of the Faculty of Agronomy at the University of Concepción and, in particular, Katherine Rebolledo, for her valuable collaboration.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A

Figure A1. Relationship between bacterial orders and soil properties. The symbols * and *** represent p-values below 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.
Figure A1. Relationship between bacterial orders and soil properties. The symbols * and *** represent p-values below 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.
Forests 16 00456 g0a1

References

  1. Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Neugarten, R.A.; Sharp, R.P.; Collins, P.M.; Polasky, S.; Hole, D.; Schuster, R.; Strimas-Mackey, M.; Mulligan, M.; Brandon, C.; et al. Mapping the planet’s critical natural assets. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 7, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. van Bruggen, A.H.C.; Semenov, A.M. In search of biological indicators for soil health and disease suppression. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2000, 15, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  4. Sünnemann, M.; Beugnon, R.; Breitkreuz, C.; Buscot, F.; Cesarz, S.; Jones, A.; Lehmann, A.; Lochner, A.; Orgiazzi, A.; Reitz, T.; et al. Climate change and cropland management compromise soil integrity and multifunctionality. Commun. Earth Environ. 2023, 4, 394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Don, A.; Seidel, F.; Leifeld, J.; Kätterer, T.; Martin, M.; Pellerin, S.; Emde, D.; Seitz, D.; Chenu, C. Carbon sequestration in soils and climate change mitigation—Definitions and pitfalls. Glob. Change Biol. 2024, 30, e16983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Calvin, K.; Dasgupta, D.; Krinner, G.; Mukherji, A.; Thorne, P.W.; Trisos, C.; Romero, J.; Aldunce, P.; Barrett, K.; Blanco, G.; et al. IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1st ed.; Core Writing Team, Lee, H., Romero, J., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ (accessed on 12 March 2024).
  7. Ren, S.; Wang, T.; Guenet, B.; Liu, D.; Cao, Y.; Ding, J.; Smith, P.; Piao, S. Projected soil carbon loss with warming in constrained Earth system models. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Georgiou, K.; Jackson, R.B.; Vindušková, O.; Abramoff, R.Z.; Ahlström, A.; Feng, W.; Harden, J.W.; Pellegrini, A.F.A.; Polley, H.W.; Soong, J.L.; et al. Global stocks and capacity of mineral-associated soil organic carbon. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 3797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bramble, D.S.E.; Ulrich, S.; Schöning, I.; Mikutta, R.; Brandt, L.; Poll, C.; Kandeler, E.; Mikutta, C.; Konrad, A.; Siemens, J.; et al. Formation of mineral-associated organic matter in temperate soils is primarily controlled by mineral type and modified by land use and management intensity. Glob. Change Biol. 2024, 30, e17024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Bossio, D.A.; Cook-Patton, S.C.; Ellis, P.W.; Fargione, J.; Sanderman, J.; Smith, P.; Wood, S.; Zomer, R.J.; von Unger, M.; Emmer, I.M.; et al. The role of soil carbon in natural climate solutions. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 391–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pan, Y.; Birdsey, R.A.; Fang, J.; Houghton, R.; Kauppi, P.E.; Kurz, W.A.; Phillips, O.L.; Shvidenko, A.; Lewis, S.L.; Canadell, J.G.; et al. A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests. Science 2011, 333, 988–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. de Gouvenain, R.C.; Silander, J.A. Temperate Forests. In Reference Module in Life Sciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; p. 9780128096338022000. Available online: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780128096338023104 (accessed on 15 January 2024).
  13. Mayer, M.; Prescott, C.E.; Abaker, W.E.A.; Augusto, L.; Cécillon, L.; Ferreira, G.W.; James, J.; Jandl, R.; Katzensteiner, K.; Laclau, J.-P.; et al. Tamm Review: Influence of forest management activities on soil organic carbon stocks: A knowledge synthesis. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 466, 118127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Currie, W.S.; Bergen, K.M. Temperate forest. In Ecosystem Ecology; Jorgenson, S.E., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 607–626. [Google Scholar]
  15. McCarragher, S.; Rigg, L.S. Temperate Forest Ecosystems. In The International Encyclopedia of Geography, 1st ed.; Richardson, D., Castree, N., Goodchild, M.F., Kobayashi, A., Liu, W., Marston, R.A., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 1–14. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0508 (accessed on 19 January 2024).
  16. Amerongen-Madison, J.; Bulmer, C.; Trofymow, T.; Prescott, C.; Wallace, B.; Philpott, T.; Dymond, C.; Fredeen, A. Soil Carbon in Forest Ecosystems: Pools and Processes. Forest Carbon Initiative. 2021. Available online: https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eirs/finishDownloadDocument.do;jsessionid=8F62A9315428CC8F653587E211134F7F?subdocumentId=21641 (accessed on 23 January 2024).
  17. Sollins, P.; Robertson, G.P.; Uehara, G. Nutrient mobility in variable- and permanent-charge soils. Biogeochemistry 1988, 6, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Lal, R. Soil and Water Conservation. In Principles of Soil Conservation and Management; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 1–19. Available online: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4020-8709-7_1 (accessed on 13 January 2025).
  19. Juhos, K.; Madarász, B.; Kotroczó, Z.; Béni, Á.; Makádi, M.; Fekete, I. Carbon sequestration of forest soils is reflected by changes in physicochemical soil indicators—A comprehensive discussion of a long-term experiment on a detritus manipulation. Geoderma 2021, 385, 114918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gunina, A.; Kuzyakov, Y. From energy to (soil organic) matter. Glob. Change Biol. 2022, 28, 2169–2182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Navarrete, A.A.; Aburto, F.; González-Rocha, G.; Guzmán, C.M.; Schmidt, R.; Scow, K. Anthropogenic degradation alter surface soil biogeochemical pools and microbial communities in an Andean temperate forest. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 854, 158508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Prăvălie, R.; Nita, I.A.; Patriche, C.; Niculiță, M.; Birsan, M.V.; Roșca, B.; Bandoc, G. Global changes in soil organic carbon and implications for land degradation neutrality and climate stability. Envr. Res. 2021, 201, 111580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Seydewitz, E.; Mulrennan, M.; García, M. A tale of two trails: Lessons from a comparative account of the Trans Canada Trail and the Sendero de Chile. Can. Geogr./Géogr. Can. 2023, 67, 288–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Keenan, R.J.; Reams, G.A.; Achard, F.; de Freitas, J.V.; Grainger, A.; Lindquist, E. Dynamics of global forest area: Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 352, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Miranda, A.; Altamirano, A.; Cayuela, L.; Lara, A.; González, M. Native forest loss in the Chilean biodiversity hotspot: Revealing the evidence. Reg. Environ. Change 2017, 17, 285–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mohr Bell, D.; Díaz, G.; Príncipe, R.; González, C.; Bono, J.; Ciuffoli, L.; Strada, M.; Parmuchi, G.; Chomnalez, F.; Montenegro, C.; et al. Monitoreo de la Superficie de Bosque Nativo de la República Argentina, Región Forestal Bosque Andino Patagónico; Tomo I. Esquel; Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable de la Nación: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  27. CONAF. Superficie de uso de Suelo Regional (Actualizado a Agosto 2017); CONAF: Santiago, Chile, 2021; Available online: https://www.conaf.cl/?s=Superficie+de+uso+de+Suelo+Regional+%28Actualizado+a+Agosto+2017%29 (accessed on 20 February 2024).
  28. Donoso, P.J.; Promis, A.; Loguercio, G.A.; Beltrán, H.A.; Casseli, M.; Chauchard, L.M.; Cruz, G.; Peñalba, M.G.; Pastur, G.M.; Navarro, C.; et al. Silviculture of South American temperate native forests. N. Z. J. For. Sci. 2022, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dube, F.; Sotomayor, A.; Loewe, V.; Müller-Using, B.; Stolpe, N.; Zagal, E.; Doussoulin, M. Silvopastoral Systems in Temperate Zones of Chile. In Silvopastoral Systems in Southern South America; Peri, P.L., Dube, F., Varella, A., Eds.; Advances in Agroforestry; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 11, pp. 183–211. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-24109-8_8 (accessed on 28 January 2024).
  30. Valle, S.R.; Carrasco, J. Soil quality indicator selection in Chilean volcanic soils formed under temperate and humid conditions. CATENA 2018, 162, 386–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nanzyo, M. Unique properties of ash volcanic soils. Glob. Environ. Res. 2002, 6, 99–112. [Google Scholar]
  32. Matus, F.; Rumpel, C.; Neculman, R.; Panichini, M.; Mora, M.L. Soil carbon storage and stabilisation in andic soils: A review. CATENA 2014, 120, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. San Martín, P. Reserva de la Biosfera Corredor Biológico Nevados de Chillán—Laguna del Laja: De la amenaza de la extinción al desarrollo sustentable. In Reservas de la Biosfera de Chile: Laboratorios para la Sustentabilidad; Moreira-Muñoz, A., Borsdorf, A., Eds.; Serie Geolibros; Academia de Ciencias Austriaca, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Instituto de Geografía: Santiago, Chile, 2014; Volume 17, pp. 146–160. [Google Scholar]
  34. Dube, F. Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile. 2020; manuscript in preparation. [Google Scholar]
  35. Alfaro, M.; Dube, F.; Zagal, E. Soil quality indicators in an Andisol under different tree covers in disturbed Nothofagus forests. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2018, 78, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Muñoz, A.A.; González, M.E. Patrones de Regeneración Arbórea en Claros a una Década de la Floración y Muerte Masiva de Chusquea quila (Poaceae) en un Remanente de Bosque Antiguo del valle Central en el Centro-Sur de Chile. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 2009, 82, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Soil Survey Staff: Keys to Soil Taxonomy; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
  38. Stolpe, N. Descripciones de los Principales Suelos de la VIII Región de Chile; Departamento de Suelos y Recursos Naturales, Facultad de Agronomia, Universidad de Concepción: Chillán, Chile, 2006; pp. 17–18. [Google Scholar]
  39. Blake, G.R.; Hartge, K.H. Particle Density 1. In Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1—Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed.; Klute, A., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy; Soil Science Society of America Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; pp. 377–382. [Google Scholar]
  40. Zhang, R. Determination of soil sorptivity and hydraulic conductivity from the disk infiltrometer. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997, 61, 1024–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zagal, E.; Longeri, L.; Vidal, I.; Hoffman, G.; González, R. Influencia de la Adición de Nitrógeno y Fósforo sobre la Descomposición de Paja de Trigo en un Suelo Derivado de Cenizas Volcánicas. Agric. Téc. 2003, 63, 403–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kemper, W.D.; Rosenau, R.C. Aggregate Stability and Size Distribution; Klute, A., Ed.; SSSA Book Series; Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 2018; pp. 425–442. [Google Scholar]
  43. Sadzawka, A.; Carrasco, M.A.; Grez, R.; Mora, M.L.; Flores, H.; Neaman, A. Métodos de Análisis Recomendados para los Suelos Chilenos; Comisión de Normalización y Acreditación, Sociedad Chilena de la Ciencia del Suelo: Santiago, Chile, 2006; p. 113. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wright, A.F.; Bailey, J.S. Organic carbon, total carbon, and total nitrogen determinations in soils of variable calcium carbonate contents using a Leco CN-2000 dry combustion analyzer. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2001, 32, 3243–3258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Brody, J.R.; Kern, S.E. Sodium boric acid: A Tris-free, cooler conductive medium for DNA electrophoresis. BioTechniques 2004, 36, 214–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mallott, E.K.; Malhi, R.S.; Amato, K.R. Assessing the Comparability of Different DNA Extraction and Amplification Methods in Gut Microbial Community Profiling. Access Microbiol. 2019, 1, e000060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Louca, S.; Parfrey, L.W.; Doebeli, M. Decoupling function and taxonomy in the global ocean microbiome. Science 2016, 353, 1272–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Põlme, S.; Bahram, M.; Jacquemyn, H.; Kennedy, P.; Kohout, P.; Moora, M.; Oja, J.; Öpik, M.; Pecoraro, L.; Tedersoo, L. Host preference and network properties in biotrophic plant–fungal associations. New Phytol. 2018, 217, 1230–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kay, M.; Elkin, L.A.; Higgins, J.J.; Wobbrock, J.O. ARTool: Aligned Rank Transform. [R] Package with Documentation and Two Vignettes; CRAN: Wien, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  50. Reynolds, W.D.; Yang, X.M.; Drury, C.F.; Zhang, T.Q.; Tan, C.S. Effects of selected conditioners and tillage on the physical quality of a clay loam soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2003, 83, 381–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Clough, A.; Skjemstad, J.O. Physical and chemical protection of soil organic carbon in three agricultural soils with different contents of calcium carbonate. Soil Res. 2000, 38, 1005–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Arshad, M.A.C.; Lowery, B.; Grossman, B. Physical Tests for Monitoring Soil Quality; Doran, J.W., Jones, A.J., Eds.; SSSA Special Publications; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 2015; pp. 123–141. Available online: https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2136/sssaspecpub49.c7 (accessed on 26 February 2024).
  53. Geng, N.; Kang, X.; Yan, X.; Yin, N.; Wang, H.; Pan, H.; Yang, Q.; Lou, Y.; Zhuge, Y. Biochar mitigation of soil acidification and carbon sequestration is influenced by materials and temperature. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022, 232, 113241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Nissen, J.; Quiroz, C.; Seguel, O.; Roberto Mac Donald, H.; Sch, A.E. Variación del potencial mátrico durante el movimiento de agua en andisoles. Agro Sur 2005, 33, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Amacher, M.C.; O’Neil, K.P.; Perry, C.H. Soil Vital Signs: A New Soil Quality Index (SQI) for Assessing Forest Soil Health; RMRS-RP-65; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  56. Hu, W.; Yao, J.; He, Q.; Chen, J. Elevation-Dependent Trends in Precipitation Observed Over and Around the Tibetan Plateau from 1971 to 2017. Water 2021, 13, 2848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Dahlgren, R.A.; Saigusa, M.; Ugolini, F.C. The Nature, Properties and Management of Volcanic Soils. In Advances in Agronomy; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 113–182. Available online: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0065211303820035 (accessed on 25 February 2024).
  58. Takahashi, T.; Dahlgren, R.A. Nature, properties and function of aluminum–humus complexes in volcanic soils. Geoderma 2016, 263, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pérez, C.A.; Carmona, M.R.; Fariña, J.M.; Armesto, J.J. Selective logging of lowland evergreen rainforests in Chiloé Island, Chile: Effects of changing tree species composition on soil nitrogen transformations. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 258, 1660–1668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Binkley, D.; Fisher, R.F. Soil Organic Matter. In Ecology and Management of Forest Soils, 4th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; p. 43. [Google Scholar]
  61. Rivas, Y.; Matus, F.; Rumpel, C.; Knicker, H.; Garrido, E. Black carbon contribution in volcanic soils affected by wildfire or stubble burning. Org. Geochem. 2012, 47, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Liu, G.; Du, Q.; Li, J. Interactive effects of nitrate-ammonium ratios and temperatures on growth, photosynthesis, and nitrogen metabolism of tomato seedlings. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 214, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Parfitt, R.L. Phosphate reactions with natural allophane, ferrihydrite and goethite. J. Soil Sci. 1989, 40, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Borie, F.; Aguilera, P.; Castillo, C.; Valentine, A.; Seguel, A.; Barea, J.M.; Cornejo, P. Revisiting the Nature of Phosphorus Pools in Chilean Volcanic Soils as a Basis for Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Management in Plant P Acquisition. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2019, 19, 390–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Villarroel, R.B. Diagnóstico de la Fertilidad del Suelo; Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias–Centro Regional de Investigación Remehue Serie Acta: Osorno, Chile, 2000; p. 71. [Google Scholar]
  66. Lehmann, J.; Rillig, M.C.; Thies, J.; Masiello, C.A.; Hockaday, W.C.; Crowley, D. Biochar effects on soil biota—A review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011, 43, 1812–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Qafoku, N.P.; Ranst, E.V.; Noble, A.; Baert, G. Variable Charge Soils: Their Mineralogy, Chemistry and Management. In Advances in Agronomy; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 159–215. Available online: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0065211304840045 (accessed on 29 February 2024).
  68. Jia, Y.; Shi, S.; Liu, J.; Su, S.; Liang, Q.; Zeng, X.; Li, T. Study of the Effect of Pyrolysis Temperature on the Cd2+ Adsorption Characteristics of Biochar. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gillespie, C.J.; Antonangelo, J.A.; Zhang, H. The Response of Soil pH and Exchangeable Al to Alum and Lime Amendments. Agriculture 2021, 11, 547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Oliveira, P.E.; Cunha, A.G.; Reyes, G.; Gacitúa, W.; Petit-Breuilh, X. Chusquea quila, a Natural Resource from Chile: Its Chemical, Physical, and Nanomechanical Properties. BioResources 2016, 11, 10057–10069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ortiz, J.; Dube, F.; Neira, P.; Panichini, M.; Stolpe, N.B.; Zagal, E.; Martínez-Hernández, P.A. Soil Quality Changes within a (Nothofagus obliqua) Forest Under Silvopastoral Management in the Andes Mountain Range, South Central Chile. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ortiz, J.; Neira, P.; Panichini, M.; Curaqueo, G.; Stolpe, N.B.; Zagal, E.; Dube, F.; Gupta, S.R. Silvopastoral Systems on Degraded Lands for Soil Carbon Sequestration and Climate Change Mitigation. In Agroforestry for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa; Dagar, J.C., Gupta, S.R., Sileshi, G.W., Eds.; Sustainability Sciences in Asia and Africa; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2023; pp. 207–242. Available online: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-981-19-4602-8_7 (accessed on 12 January 2024).
  73. Muñoz, C.; Torres, P.; Alvear, M.; Zagal, E. Physical protection of C and greenhouse gas emissions provided by soil macroaggregates from a Chilean cultivated volcanic soil. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B—Soil Plant Sci. 2012, 62, 739–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Li, X.; Zhang, Q.; Feng, J.; Jiang, D.; Zhu, B. Forest management causes soil carbon loss by reducing particulate organic carbon in Guangxi, Southern China. For. Ecosyst. 2023, 10, 100092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Dube, F.; Thevathasan, N.V.; Zagal, E.; Gordon, A.M.; Stolpe, N.B.; Espinosa, M. Carbon Sequestration Potential of Silvopastoral and Other Land Use Systems in the Chilean Patagonia. In Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry Systems; Kumar, B.M., Nair, P.K.R., Eds.; Advances in Agroforestry; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 8, pp. 101–127. Available online: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-007-1630-8_6 (accessed on 25 February 2024).
  76. Alfaro, M.; Dube, F.; Zagal, E. The Influence of Overmature, Degraded Nothofagus Forests with Strong Anthropic Disturbance on the Quality of an Andisol and its Gradual Recovery with Silvopasture in Southwestern South America. In Agroforestry for Degraded Landscapes; Dagar, J.C., Gupta, S.R., Teketay, D., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 67–85. Available online: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-981-15-6807-7_3 (accessed on 15 January 2025).
  77. Neira, P.; Henríquez-Castillo, C.; Ortiz, J.; Stolpe, N.; Dube, F. Do different densities of tree cover affect pasture biomass and soil microbial communities? Agrofor. Syst. 2021, 95, 1465–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zerbe, S.; Storz, S.T.; Leitinger, G.; Joelson, N.Z.; Bava, J.; Heinrichs, S.; Leuschner, C.; Loguercio, G.; Simon, A.; Urretavizcaya, M.F.; et al. Regeneration of Nothofagus dombeyi (Mirb.) Ørst. in little to moderately disturbed southern beech forests in the Andes of Patagonia (Argentina). For. Ecosyst. 2023, 10, 100126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Diao, J.; Liu, J.; Zhu, Z.; Wei, X.; Li, M. Active forest management accelerates carbon storage in plantation forests in Lishui, southern China. For. Ecosyst. 2022, 9, 100004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Nicholson, W.L.; Fajardo-Cavazos, P.; Rebeil, R.; Slieman, T.A.; Riesenman, P.J.; Law, J.F.; Xue, Y. Bacterial endospores and their significance in stress resistance. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2002, 81, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Checinska, A.; Paszczynski, A.; Burbank, M. Bacillus and Other Spore-Forming Genera: Variations in Responses and Mechanisms for Survival. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 6, 351–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ranawat, P.; Rawat, S. Radiation resistance in thermophiles: Mechanisms and applications. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017, 33, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Kozlowski, T.T.; Pallardy, S.G. Physiology of Woody Plants, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1996; 42332p. [Google Scholar]
  84. Epihov, D.Z.; Saltonstall, K.; Batterman, S.A.; Hedin, L.O.; Hall, J.S.; van Breugel, M.; Leake, J.R.; Beerling, D.J. Legume–microbiome interactions unlock mineral nutrients in regrowing tropical forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2022241118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wu, D.; Wei, Z.; Mohamed, T.A.; Zheng, G.; Qu, F.; Wang, F.; Zhao, Y.; Song, C. Lignocellulose biomass bioconversion during composting: Mechanism of action of lignocellulase, pretreatment methods and future perspectives. Chemosphere 2022, 286, 131635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. McDaniel, M.D.; Tiemann, L.K.; Grandy, A.S. Does agricultural crop diversity enhance soil microbial biomass and organic matter dynamics? A meta-analysis. Ecol. Appl. 2014, 24, 560–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zhou, Z.; Gao, T.; Van Zwieten, L.; Zhu, Q.; Yan, T.; Xue, J.; Wu, Y. Soil Microbial Community Structure Shifts Induced by Biochar and Biochar-Based Fertilizer Amendment to Karst Calcareous Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2019, 83, 398–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Xue, Y.; Jonassen, I.; Øvreås, L.; Taş, N. Metagenome-assembled genome distribution and key functionality highlight importance of aerobic metabolism in Svalbard permafrost. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2020, 96, fiaa057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Scarlett, K.; Denman, S.; Clark, D.R.; Forster, J.; Vanguelova, E.; Brown, N.; Whitby, C. Relationships between nitrogen cycling microbial community abundance and composition reveal the indirect effect of soil pH on oak decline. ISME J. 2021, 15, 623–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Fierer, N. Embracing the unknown: Disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017, 15, 579–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Allison, S.D.; Martiny, J.B.H. Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105 (Suppl. S1), 11512–11519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Goldfarb, K.C.; Karaoz, U.; Hanson, C.A.; Santee, C.A.; Bradford, M.A.; Treseder, K.K.; Wallenstein, M.D.; Brodie, E.L. Differential Growth Responses of Soil Bacterial Taxa to Carbon Substrates of Varying Chemical Recalcitrance. Front. Microbio. 2011, 2, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Lladó, S.; López-Mondéjar, R.; Baldrian, P. Forest Soil Bacteria: Diversity, Involvement in Ecosystem Processes, and Response to Global Change. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2017, 81, e00063-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Fierer, N.; Bradford, M.A.; Jackson, R.B. Toward an ecological classification of soil bacteria. Ecology 2007, 88, 1354–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Treseder, K.K.; Lennon, J.T. Fungal Traits That Drive Ecosystem Dynamics on Land. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2015, 79, 243–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Shade, A.; Peter, H.; Allison, S.D.; Baho, D.L.; Berga, M.; Bürgmann, H.; Huber, D.H.; Langenheder, S.; Lennon, J.T.; Martiny, J.B.H. Fundamentals of Microbial Community Resistance and Resilience. Front. Microbio. 2012, 3, 417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Evans, S.E.; Wallenstein, M.D. Climate change alters ecological strategies of soil bacteria. Ecol. Lett. 2014, 17, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Schimel, J.P.; Schaeffer, S.M. Microbial control over carbon cycling in soil. Front. Microbio. 2012, 3, 348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Approaching maps illustrating study site. (A) national map of central-south Chile, highlighting Ñuble Region in orange, (B) regional map of Ñuble, and the location of the Ranchillo Alto site in southern part of the region, (C) localization of the protected area Ranchillo Alto and the position of the FADIST and SECFORST analyzed in this study.
Figure 1. Approaching maps illustrating study site. (A) national map of central-south Chile, highlighting Ñuble Region in orange, (B) regional map of Ñuble, and the location of the Ranchillo Alto site in southern part of the region, (C) localization of the protected area Ranchillo Alto and the position of the FADIST and SECFORST analyzed in this study.
Forests 16 00456 g001
Figure 2. Photographs of the study area, (A) original degraded site overview, (B) FADIST, and (C) SECFORST. Photo credits: F. Dube.
Figure 2. Photographs of the study area, (A) original degraded site overview, (B) FADIST, and (C) SECFORST. Photo credits: F. Dube.
Forests 16 00456 g002
Figure 3. Heat map illustrating Spearman’s correlation coefficients among the evaluated physical and chemical properties. The symbols * and ** represent p-values below 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. Reddish tones correspond to negative correlations, blue tones refer to positive correlations, and color intensity represents levels of correlation.
Figure 3. Heat map illustrating Spearman’s correlation coefficients among the evaluated physical and chemical properties. The symbols * and ** represent p-values below 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. Reddish tones correspond to negative correlations, blue tones refer to positive correlations, and color intensity represents levels of correlation.
Forests 16 00456 g003
Figure 4. Composition of microbial communities in degraded and non-degraded soils at different depths. (A) Bacterial community and (B) fungal community. Bars represent the relative abundance (%) of different microbial classes in degraded soils at 20 cm (FADist20) and 5 cm (FADist5) depths, and in non-degraded soils at 20 cm (SECforst20) and 5 cm (SECforst5) depths. Different microbial classes are indicated by specific colors, as shown in the legend. Differences in the abundance and diversity of microbial classes reflect the influence of both soil degradation and depth.
Figure 4. Composition of microbial communities in degraded and non-degraded soils at different depths. (A) Bacterial community and (B) fungal community. Bars represent the relative abundance (%) of different microbial classes in degraded soils at 20 cm (FADist20) and 5 cm (FADist5) depths, and in non-degraded soils at 20 cm (SECforst20) and 5 cm (SECforst5) depths. Different microbial classes are indicated by specific colors, as shown in the legend. Differences in the abundance and diversity of microbial classes reflect the influence of both soil degradation and depth.
Forests 16 00456 g004
Figure 5. The figure shows a comparison of bacterial and fungal communities across soil samples with different levels of organic management (FADIST and SECFORST). Panels (A,B) display the distribution of bacterial and fungal communities, respectively, categorized by their energy sources, biogeochemical cycles, trophic modes, and guilds, with color intensity reflecting the percentage of each functional group. Panels (C,D) present heatmaps illustrating the correlations between microbial community functions (bacterial and fungal) and soil characteristics, with color gradients indicating the strength and direction of these correlations (red for positive and blue for negative). These analyses highlight how varying soil management practices influence the composition and functional dynamics of microbial communities in agricultural soils.
Figure 5. The figure shows a comparison of bacterial and fungal communities across soil samples with different levels of organic management (FADIST and SECFORST). Panels (A,B) display the distribution of bacterial and fungal communities, respectively, categorized by their energy sources, biogeochemical cycles, trophic modes, and guilds, with color intensity reflecting the percentage of each functional group. Panels (C,D) present heatmaps illustrating the correlations between microbial community functions (bacterial and fungal) and soil characteristics, with color gradients indicating the strength and direction of these correlations (red for positive and blue for negative). These analyses highlight how varying soil management practices influence the composition and functional dynamics of microbial communities in agricultural soils.
Forests 16 00456 g005
Table 1. Description of study cases.
Table 1. Description of study cases.
ConditionLocationAssessed
Area (ha)
N° Plots and Area (ha)Tree Density
(No ha−1); Average Tree Height (m) and Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) (cm)
Forest SpeciesUnderstory-Herbaceous Strata CompositionDegradation Record
FADIST37°03′31.87″ S, 71°38′21.76″ W
1367 m.a.s.l
43 × 1.3360; 15 and 34Roble (Nothofagus obliqua (Mirb.) Oerst. - coihue (Nothofagus dombeyi) (Mirb.) Oerst. (5:1)Vetch (Fabaceae purpurea), clover (Trifolium incarnatum, T. subterraneum, and T. vesiculosum), Lolium multiflorum westerwoldicum, Phalaris acuatica, Lolium perenne, oats (Avena sativa), Festuca arundinacea, Dactylis glomerata L.), Chusquea sp., and there-sprouting of Radal (Lomatia hirsuta (Lam.) Diels)Evidence of wildfire, agricultural burning, and intense logging.
Testimony of use of intensive animal–mechanical loads; cattle grazing–browsing, prolonged commercial, and domestic timber harvesting
SECFORST37°4′43.01″ S, 71°39′25.32″ W
1250 m.s.n.m
43 × 1.33296; 33 and 46Roble (Nothofagus obliqua)- coihue (Nothofagus dombeyi) (8:3)Primarily dominated by Chusquea sp., a circumstance that has been reported in the literature during regenerative dynamics processes post-disturbance (e.g., Muñoz and Gonzalez, 2009; Donoso et al., 2022 [28,36])Evidence of fire events.
Testimony of use of intensive animal loads; cattle/goat/equine grazing and/or browsing, prolonged commercial and domestic timber harvesting
Table 2. Results of physical characterization.
Table 2. Results of physical characterization.
PropertyFADIST
0–5
FADIST
5–20
SECFORST
0–5
SECFORST
5–20
A INFVk *13.05 ± 0.3 A13.05 ± 0.3 A18.1 ± 0.66 B18.1 ± 0.66 B
WHC **40.42 ± 4.35 Aa38.05 ± 4.42 Aa39.30 ± 1.68 Aa34.86 ± 6.07 Aa
BD ***0.63 ± 0.02 Aa0.59 ± 0.02 Aa0.57 ± 0.02 Aa0.56 ± 0.01 Aa
PD ***1.94 ± 0.01 Aa1.92 ± 0.02 Aa1.95 ± 0.03 Aa1.93 ± 0.03 Aa
B POR (%) **67.19 ± 0.69 Aa70.77 ± 1.18 Aa69.59 ± 1.61 Aa70.98 ± 0.89 Aa
WSA **49.77 ± 0.36 Aa49.80 ± 0.14 Aa52.47 ± 4.77 Aa50.83 ± 1.64 Aa
PENRES ****350.0 ± 0.0 Aa316.67 ± 57.7 Ab250.0 ± 0.0 Bb250.0 ± 0.0 Bb
A Relative to total depth (0–20), B estimated through the Formula (1), *: (cm d−1); **: (%); ***: (g cm−3); ****: (PSI). Disparity in capital letters indicates significant differences (p < 0.05) between PENRES and FADIST, while in the case of lowercase letters, it refers to differences between depths.
Table 3. Soil chemical properties.
Table 3. Soil chemical properties.
Condition
PropertyFADIST
0–5
FADIST
5–20
SECFORST
0–5
SECFORST
5–20
pH6.19 ± 0.05 Aa6.15 ± 0.05 Aa5.9 ± 0.06 Bb5.86 ± 0.07 Bb
SOC *10.10 ± 0.25 Aa8.47 ± 0.66 Bb11.03 ± 1.01 Cc10.46 ± 0.96 Dd
N *0.73 ± 0.06 Aa0.63 ± 0.06 Aa0.77 ± 0.06 Bb0.77 ± 0.06 Bb
C:N17.61 ± 1.34 Aa16.71 ± 1.64 Aa17.01 ± 1.67 Aa16.39 ± 2.55 Aa
NH4+ **5.94 ± 0.32 Aa5.37 ± 0.66 Aa6.11 ± 0.27 Aa5.36 ± 0.41 Aa
NO3 **5.4 ± 0.18 Aa4.43 ± 0.39 Bb3.72 ± 0.43 Bb3.02 ± 0.28 Cc
P+ **2.25 ± 0.29 Ab1.91 ± 0.31 Aa2.62 ± 0.11 Bb1.91 ± 0.24 Aa
K **0.34 ± 0.06 Aa0.19 ± 0.03 Bb0.71 ± 0.05 Cc0.59 ± 0.02 Cc
Ca2+ **8.06 ± 2.11 Aa3.57 ± 0.91 Bb3.78 ± 0.23 Bb2.05 ± 0.61 Cc
Mg2+ **0.84 ± 0.07 Aa0.30 ± 0.07 Bb0.68 ± 0.09 Aa0.33 ± 0.02 Bb
S **2.83 ± 0.71 Aa5.86 ± 1.14 Bb12.70 ± 0.44 Cc11.97 ± 0.60 Cc
ECEC ***5.92 ± 0.73 Aa4.44 ± 0.68 Bb6.40 ± 0.80 Aa2.81 ± 0.29 Bb
AlEXCH ***0.09 ± 0.05 Aa0.08 ± 0.02 Aa0.18 ± 0.03 Bb0.22 ± 0.02 Bb
A AlSAT *1.52 ± 0.07 Aa1.80 ± 0.15 Bb0.43 ± 0.60 Cc7.83 ± 0.26 Dd
*: %; **: mg kg−1; ***: cmol (+) kg−1). Disparity in capital letters indicates significant differences (p < 0.05) between PENRES and FADIST, while in the case of lowercase letters, it refers to differences between depths. A Estimated through the Formula (2).
Table 4. Temporal variation in SOC concentration, SOC stocks, and CO2SOC.
Table 4. Temporal variation in SOC concentration, SOC stocks, and CO2SOC.
FADISTSECFORST
Previous SOC (%)8.2 *10.1 *
SOC20208.910.6
A Previous SOC stock (Mg ha−1)81.18 *103.53 *
ASOC stock 2020 (Mg ha−1)106.53120.07
Theoretical annual CO2→SOC4.232.75
The data listed correspond to the weighted values for the depths 0–5 and 5–20 as follows: * for the year 2014 (source: Dube, pers. Commun.) [34], as the nearest referential records to our study conditions. A Estimated through the Formula (3).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ortiz, J.; Panichini, M.; Neira, P.; Henríquez-Castillo, C.; Gallardo Jara, R.E.; Rodriguez, R.; Mutis, A.; Ramos, C.; Espejo, W.; Puc-Kauil, R.; et al. How Natural Regeneration After Severe Disturbance Affects Ecosystem Services Provision of Andean Forest Soils at Contrasting Timescales. Forests 2025, 16, 456. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16030456

AMA Style

Ortiz J, Panichini M, Neira P, Henríquez-Castillo C, Gallardo Jara RE, Rodriguez R, Mutis A, Ramos C, Espejo W, Puc-Kauil R, et al. How Natural Regeneration After Severe Disturbance Affects Ecosystem Services Provision of Andean Forest Soils at Contrasting Timescales. Forests. 2025; 16(3):456. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16030456

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ortiz, Juan, Marcelo Panichini, Pablo Neira, Carlos Henríquez-Castillo, Rocio E. Gallardo Jara, Rodrigo Rodriguez, Ana Mutis, Camila Ramos, Winfred Espejo, Ramiro Puc-Kauil, and et al. 2025. "How Natural Regeneration After Severe Disturbance Affects Ecosystem Services Provision of Andean Forest Soils at Contrasting Timescales" Forests 16, no. 3: 456. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16030456

APA Style

Ortiz, J., Panichini, M., Neira, P., Henríquez-Castillo, C., Gallardo Jara, R. E., Rodriguez, R., Mutis, A., Ramos, C., Espejo, W., Puc-Kauil, R., Zagal, E., Stolpe, N., Schoebitz, M., Sandoval, M., & Dube, F. (2025). How Natural Regeneration After Severe Disturbance Affects Ecosystem Services Provision of Andean Forest Soils at Contrasting Timescales. Forests, 16(3), 456. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16030456

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop