Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T01:43:09.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Compost additions decrease relative abundance of biocrust cyanobacteria and alter soil stable isotope signature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2026

Eva Stricker*
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico , USA
Lukas Bell-Dereske
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico , USA
Catherine Peshek
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico , USA
Lisa Garcia
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico , USA
Jennifer Lindsey
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico , USA
Citlali Tierney
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico , USA
Julie Bethany
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico , USA
*
Corresponding author: Eva Stricker; Email: evadr@unm.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Compost amendments are a promising tool for building productivity in degraded rangelands, but the effect on biological soil crusts (biocrusts), the surface microbial communities found in drylands, has not been investigated. Biocrusts contribute both carbon uptake and other ecosystem services in drylands. We investigated how 6.3 mm of surface-dressed compost at a Tribal rangeland in central New Mexico, USA, affected temperature, carbon and nitrogen characteristics, the relative abundance of biocrust microbial communities (fungi and bacteria) – specifically cyanobacterial communities – as well as the resulting aggregate stability at the soil surface after 1 year. Surface temperature maxima increased with compost addition in cooler ambient conditions, and the δ13C signatures of the soils from compost addition plots were >1‰ lighter compared to controls, indicating >35% of soil carbon was compost-derived, but organic C, total N percentage and aggregate stability did not differ among compost treatments. Several compost-derived taxa became indicator species in the amended plots, and compost addition decreased cyanobacteria relative abundance up to 58%. While previous results show that compost may benefit plants from a slow-release fertilization effect and soil carbon in deeper soil layers increases, there could be complex impacts on biocrust organic carbon with changing temperature and microbial community.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Relationships of surface soil temperature (°C) recorded from iButtons to daily ambient temperature conditions (from PRISM) for August–November 2021 and results of linear mixed effect models. (a) Maximum, (b) mean and (c) minimum daily values (n observations = 756 [points]; n day of year = 84; n plots = 8) with 95% confidence intervals (shaded gray). Compost treatment is shown by color (control = gray, manure-based compost = red, food-based compost = blue).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Boxplots (median, first and third quartiles, with whiskers to 1.5 × interquartile range) of a) δ13C of acid-fumigated samples, (b) δ15N of untreated samples, (c) percentage C of acid fumigated samples and (d) percentage N of untreated samples from clumps of biocrust filaments from the top 0–1.5 cm in compost addition and control plots after 1 year (n = 3 per treatment). Dotted lines indicate stable isotope values of initial compost inocula (n = 1 each; food-based compost = blue; manure-based compost = red). Differences between levels of compost addition treatments are marked with lowercase letters for post-hoc P < 0.05; lowercase letters are italicized for post-hoc 0.05 ≤ P < 0.10.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Bacterial and fungal composition in initial compost inocula and biocrust samples (0–1.5 depth) of compost addition plots and control plots after 1 year. Left: Stacked bar graphs of order-level (a) bacterial and (c) fungal community composition (colors) of compost inocula (‘food-based compost’ or ‘manure-based compost’; n = 1 each), biocrusts in compost addition plots (‘food-based’ or ‘manure-based’) or control plots (n = 3 each). Right: NMDS graphs of (b) bacterial ASV and (d) fungal OTU compositions of biocrusts in control (gray triangle), manure-based compost addition (red triangle) and food-based compost addition (blue square) plots with PERMANOVA results. Data were square root transformed with Wisconsin standardization and Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrix.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Cyanobacterial community composition in initial compost inocula and biocrust samples (0–1.5 cm) of compost addition plots and control plots after 1 year. (a) Stacked bar graph of genus level, or higher if not classified to genus of compost inocula (‘food-based compost’ or ‘manure-based compost’, n = 1 each), biocrusts in compost addition plots (‘food-based’ or ‘manure-based’) or control plots (n = 3 each). (b) NMDS graph of cyanobacterial ASV compositions of biocrusts in control (gray triangle), manure-based compost addition (red triangle) and food-based compost addition (blue square) plots with PERMANOVA results. Data were square root transformed with Wisconsin standardization and Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrix.

Figure 4

Table 1. Bacterial ASV and fungal OTU indicators (indicator value > 0.95) of plots receiving the food-based compost treatment

Figure 5

Table 2. Bacterial ASV and fungal OTU indicators (indicator value > 0.95) of plots receiving the manure-based compost treatment

Figure 6

Table 3. Bacterial ASV and fungal OTU indicators (indicator value > 0.95) of control plots

Supplementary material: File

Stricker et al. supplementary material

Stricker et al. supplementary material
Download Stricker et al. supplementary material(File)
File 173.2 KB

Author comment: Compost additions decrease relative abundance of biocrust cyanobacteria and alter soil stable isotope signature — R0/PR1

Comments

Sep. 19, 2025

Dear Drs. Eldridge and Sala,

Please find attached our manuscript entitled “Compost additions decrease relative abundance of biocrust cyanobacteria and alter soil stable isotope signature” that we are submitting for consideration as a Research Article in the journal Drylands.

This manuscript will provide value to readers because it addresses the use of a sustainable agricultural practice, compost amendments, for management of degraded soils, and seeks to understand the effect on the existing surface microbial community in the biocrusts. The research presented addresses not only the effects of compost on traditional responses such as soil carbon and surface aggregate stability, but also investigates soil surface temperature, stable isotope values, and is the first manuscript to present associated shifts in microbial communities (bacteria and fungi) in drylands one year post compost addition.

Overall, our results indicate that compost addition can elevate mean and maximum surface temperature in the fall growing season. We found that while the stable isotope values suggested that surface soil organic carbon contained 35-48% of compost-derived carbon, the pool of organic carbon did not significantly change, suggesting complex shifts in inputs and outputs of soil C. We found that the feedstock characteristics of composts matter to the resulting biocrust microbial communities because there were differences in fungal, bacterial, and cyanobacterial composition based on compost type after one year. Dominant taxa often did not change in the soils after compost addition, but some rare taxa became more abundant, as evidenced by Indicator Species Analysis. Despite these shifts in composition, there was no difference in surface stability between compost and control plots, suggesting that despite decreased cyanobacterial relative abundance, the functional role of resistance to surface erosion remained.

I would additionally like to highlight the contribution of both graduate and undergraduate students to this manuscript through a course-based project supported by the UNM Center for Stable Isotopes. Four of the co-authors conducted field and lab work as part of a course at the University of New Mexico and substantial portions of the writing and analysis are based on their report.

Thus, this study suggests that compost amendments could become part of land manager’s strategies for implementing climate smart and sustainable practices but should be done in context of the existing function of the surface soil communities. Thank you for your time and consideration of this manuscript.

- Dr. Eva Stricker

Review: Compost additions decrease relative abundance of biocrust cyanobacteria and alter soil stable isotope signature — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

I declare no competing interests

Comments

The manuscript by Stricker and colleagues describes changes in cyanobacterial species after the application of compost. It is nicely written and will be an important addition to the literature on compost and soil amendments.

I missed some discussion about the constituents of the different composts/amendments. What was the food compost made from? Had it been pretreated before it was added? For how long? This material is important as the reader will want to know exactly what is going on to these soil surfaces.

More importantly, why would you be using compost in areas supporting biological crusts ? It seems that you need a statement somewhere in the Introduction to say that some of this compost is being applied in areas with soil crusts.

Why is it a problem that relative abundance of cyanobacteria declines?

L21: reordering in community structure (include the word structure)

L50: of Earth’s surface (note uppercase and the fact that it is a proper noun therefore no ‘the’

L51: What are dry working lands?

L62: Put a space between 700 and Tg

L70: suggest this change: compost on bacterial (with a focus on cyanobacterial) and fungal communities using metabarcoding.

L83: spp. is not italicised

L104: What is a t-post

Tables and figures paragraph

I am a bit confused about the tables showing the indicator species analysis. The analyses should give you an indicator value, from 0 to 1 or 0 to 100 (if a percentage). This will tell you the strength of the indicator value. Having tables with reams of taxa that are significant is not particularly insightful. These tables should go into the Supplementary Material and I would encourage the authors to include the indicator value that is produced from the R output. The first 5 or so taxa for each of the three treatments (assuming that they are all significant) could all go into the one table, which would be more manageable and more insightful.

I question the utility of Figure 1. What does it tell us? That the relationships are strongly aligned. I would put this into the supplementary material.

Other than these issues I really enjoyed reading the manuscript. It is very well written, and I think it will make a very good addition to the special issue on soil amendments

David Eldridge

October 18, 2025

Recommendation: Compost additions decrease relative abundance of biocrust cyanobacteria and alter soil stable isotope signature — R0/PR3

Comments

Line 37: How significant is a variation of 1 per mil (‰) in δ13C among the biological crust? What is the δ13C value of the compost before it is added?

Line 96: I am not sure that depth is the most relevant parameter for land managers. In my opinion refering to a volume of 0.4 m³ of compost might be more relevant and more easy to measure than depth 6.3 mm of compost.

Line 111: At what stage were the compost inocula sampled?

Line 113: The biocrust samples include soil beneath the material. How was this deeper material separated from the biocrust for the C, N and ∂C13 analyses?

Line 118: Same question as previously.

Lines 249–252: The use of ‘we’ here is confusing, as the statement refers to another publication, not this one.

Lines 252–253: The authors state that there is a strong isotopic signature of the compost in the surface (0– 15 mm layer. However, it is unclear on what basis the comparison is made.

Line 265, the use of ‘we’ is ambiguous. It seems that the statement refers to another study, not this one.

Line 273: The use of ‘we’ is ambiguous again on

Figure 2 is not self-contained and contains errors. It is also inconsistent with the results in the abstract and results sections. This figure refers to the control, manure and food samples. The abstract refers to the δ13C values of shallow soils and the control. The results section refers to biocrust signatures. Please use ‘δ’ instead of ‘d’.

Figure 1 and 2 please separate title from the explanation of the figure.

Decision: Compost additions decrease relative abundance of biocrust cyanobacteria and alter soil stable isotope signature — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Compost additions decrease relative abundance of biocrust cyanobacteria and alter soil stable isotope signature — R1/PR5

Comments

I just want to quickly note that I had originally submitted for the biocrust restoration special issue, but it looks as though it’s being handled as an organic amendments special issue instead. That is totally fine with us, but just in case it’s helpful to you all to note that change.

Review: Compost additions decrease relative abundance of biocrust cyanobacteria and alter soil stable isotope signature — R1/PR6

Conflict of interest statement

I declare no COI

Comments

I’m very happy with the way the authors have addressed my concerns in this revised manuscript I have very few comments to make except draw your attention to a few issues Which would need to be addressed before the paper can be published

L43 What are dry working lands? Do you mean dry land used for grazing?

L60: an unamended control OR unamended controls

L221, 235, 237: the Permanova R^2 values are missing

L283: suggest NOT suggests

L288-291: I found the sentence very confusing and convoluted. Please rewrite.

Finally, the references do not appear to be formatted according to the journal’s style. Please consult a recent issue of the journal.

A very nice paper and I look forward to seeing it published

David Eldridge

December 11, 2025

Recommendation: Compost additions decrease relative abundance of biocrust cyanobacteria and alter soil stable isotope signature — R1/PR7

Comments

Please consider adressing all the recommendation of the reviewer, as well as the following minor points.

L145-146 please precise to which kind of adhering material you are refering to. The sentence can be re-written as follow "...thus C and N from these samples are originated from biocrust filaments as well as any organic material adhered to those samples.

L243 incomplete sentence. Please remove “.”.

L250-251 the sentence sounds incomplete. please correct. Maybe you are meaning “The bacterial communities in the biocrust were not significantly different by compost treatments”

L265-267: same remarks as previously

Decision: Compost additions decrease relative abundance of biocrust cyanobacteria and alter soil stable isotope signature — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Compost additions decrease relative abundance of biocrust cyanobacteria and alter soil stable isotope signature — R2/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: Compost additions decrease relative abundance of biocrust cyanobacteria and alter soil stable isotope signature — R2/PR10

Comments

All the issues raised in the revised manuscript have been addressed. The paper is now ready for publication in Cambridge Prism: Drylands journal. Thank you.

Decision: Compost additions decrease relative abundance of biocrust cyanobacteria and alter soil stable isotope signature — R2/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.