Functional Ecology· 2026Q1
Saline versus alkaline stresses in paddy soils drive divergent microbial nutrient limitations despite shared carbon constraints
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Saline and alkaline stresses in paddy soils both increase microbial carbon limitation, but diverge in nitrogen vs. phosphorus limitation: saline soils show acute N limitation, while alkaline soils show stronger P limitation.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Saline and alkaline stresses significantly increase microbial carbon limitation by 24.79% and 90.43% respectively, compared to controls.
- Saline soils show acute microbial nitrogen limitation (VT N/P = -6.51) due to lower N availability and bacterial network reorganization.
- Alkaline soils exhibit stronger microbial phosphorus limitation (VT N/P = 9.73) linked to reduced P bioavailability and fungal network reorganization.
- Divergent nutrient limitations arise from coupled soil physicochemical constraints, microbial community reassembly, and functional gene responses.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Abstract Soil salinization and alkalization often suppress microbial functional activity, triggering negative feedback loops in microbial metabolism, degrading nutrients and agricultural productivity. However, the impacts of saline versus alkaline soils on microbial metabolism remain unclear. We compared reclaimed coastal saline ( S 1 ) and Songnen alkaline ( A 1 ) paddy soils with their corresponding non‐saline controls ( S 0 and A 0 ) using models of ecoenzymatic stoichiometry, aggregate fractionation, amplicon sequencing and high‐throughput qPCR to quantify microbial carbon (C), nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) limitation and their abiotic and biotic drivers. Our findings revealed that saline and alkaline stresses consistently intensified microbial C limitation by 24.79% and 90.43%, respectively, relative to their corresponding CK soils. However, the two regional soil systems showed divergent nutrient limitation patterns associated with contrasting physicochemical and microbial conditions. Saline soils exhibited acute microbial N limitation (VT N/P limitation = −6.51), which was associated with lower N availability, including 53.29% lower DTN than in alkaline soils, macroaggregate‐associated N depletion, and bacterial‐associated network reorganization. Microbial functional profiles further indicated greater genetic potential for denitrification and lower genetic potential for dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium, with A 1 soils having 25.12% lower nirK/S abundance and 49.68% higher napA abundance than S 1 soils. In contrast, alkaline soils exhibited stronger microbial P limitation (VT N/P limitation = 9.73), which was associated with reduced P bioavailability, including 56.68% lower AP than in saline soils, greater P sequestration in silt+clay fractions, and fungal‐associated network reorganization. This pattern was accompanied by stronger suppression of genes associated with organic P mineralization and inorganic P solubilization, with phnK and gcd + pqqC abundances being 28.27% and 25.19% lower than in S 1 soils, respectively. These results show that divergent microbial nutrient limitations arise from coupled soil physicochemical constraints, microbial community reassembly, network reorganization and functional gene responses, rather than from ion‐specific chemistry alone. These results highlight organic matter restoration as a common priority, but indicate divergent N/P fertilization strategies for saline and alkaline soils. These insights provide a fundamental framework for targeted remediation of saline and alkaline soils and facilitate sustainable agricultural practices by integrating both universal and salt‐type‐specific methodological approaches. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Functional Ecology, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Soil Science
Soil ScienceAgricultural and Biological Sciences