Microbiome predators in changing soils.

Microbiome predators shape the soil microbiome and thereby soil functions. However, this knowledge has been obtained from small-scale observations in fundamental rather than applied settings and has focused on a few species under ambient conditions. Therefore, there are several unaddressed questions on soil microbiome predators: (1) What is the role of microbiome predators in soil functioning? (2) How does global change affect microbiome predators and their functions? (3) How can microbiome predators be applied in agriculture? We show that there is sufficient evidence for the vital role of microbiome predators in soils and stress that global changes impact their functions, something that urgently needs to be addressed to better understand soil functioning as a whole. We are convinced that there is a potential for the application of microbiome predators in agricultural settings, as they may help to sustainably increase plant growth. Therefore, we plea for more applied research on microbiome predators.

Interactive effects of global change drivers as determinants of the link between soil biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.

Biodiversity, both aboveground and belowground, is negatively affected by global changes such as drought or warming. This loss of biodiversity impacts Earth's ecosystems, as there is a positive relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (BEF). Even though soils host a large fraction of biodiversity that underlies major ecosystem functions, studies exploring the relationship between soil biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (sBEF) as influenced by global change drivers (GCDs) remain scarce. Here we highlight the need to decipher sBEF relationships under the effect of interactive GCDs that are intimately connected in a changing world. We first state that sBEF relationships depend on the type of function (e.g., C cycling or decomposition) and biodiversity facet (e.g., abundance, species richness, or biomass) considered. Then, we shed light on the impact of single and interactive GCDs on soil biodiversity and sBEF and show that results from scarce studies studying interactive effects range from antagonistic to additive to synergistic when two individual GCDs cooccur. This indicates the need for studies quantitatively accounting for the impacts of interactive GCDs on sBEF relationships. Finally, we provide guidelines for optimized methodological and experimental approaches to study sBEF in a changing world that will provide more valuable information on the real impact of (interactive) GCDs on sBEF. Together, we highlight the need to decipher the sBEF relationship in soils to better understand soil functioning under ongoing global changes, as changes in sBEF are of immediate importance for ecosystem functioning.

Species-specific predation determines the feeding impacts of six soil protist species on bacterial and eukaryotic prey.

Predatory protists play a central role in nutrient cycling and are involved in other ecosystem functions by predating the microbiome. While most soil predatory protist species arguably are bacterivorous, some protist species can prey on eukaryotes. However, studies about soil protist feeding mainly focused on bacteria as prey and rarely tested both bacteria and eukaryotes as potential prey. In this study, we aimed to decipher soil predator-prey interactions of three amoebozoan and three heterolobosean soil protists and potential bacterial (Escherichia coli; 0.5-1.5 µm), fungal (Saccharomyces cerevisiae; 5-7 µm) and protist (Plasmodiophora brassicae; 3-5 µm) prey, either as individual prey or in all their combinations. We related protist performance (relative abundance) and prey consumption (qPCR) to the protist phylogenetic group and volume. We showed that for the six soil protist predators, the most suitable prey was E. coli, but some species also grew on P. brassicae or S. cerevisiae. While protist relative abundances and growth rates depended on prey type in a protist species-specific manner, phylogenetic groups and volume affected prey consumption. Yet we conclude that protist feeding patterns are mainly species-specific and that some known bacterivores might be more generalist than expected, even preying on eukaryotic plant pathogens such as P. brassicae.