Data from: Monitoring microarthropods assemblages along a pH gradient in a forest soil over a 60 years’ time period

Abstract

The goal of this study was to assess the development, over 60 years, of microarthropod communities over a pH gradient in forest soil. Site Description Hackfort is an oak coppice grove in the East-Southeast of the city of Zutphen in the province of Gelderland, the Netherlands, 52°06′09.7″ N, 6°15′56.0″ E (see Figure 1). The experimental area is about 1.5 ha and is divided in a 10 m × 10 m grid. Vegetation is dominated by common oak (Quercus robur), mixed with birch (Betula pendula), and had in 1959, an understory of wood sage plugs (Teucrium scorodonia), wood anemone (Anemone nemorosa), bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), and wavy-hair grass (Deschampsia flexuosa). In later years, the understory became more dominated by bramble species (Rubus fruticosus and R. idaeus) and common nettles (Urtica dioica) at the edges of the forest, due to increased N deposition from adjacent farmland. The forest is situated at the transition from western riverine deposits and eastern periglacial cover sands. The soil is a riverine deposit with a few elevation differences, making a number of gradients in clay and loam content, which results in many short-distance gradients in soil types, varying from typic haplaquolls with the largest loam contents, via psammaquentic haplorthods to humaqueptic spodic psammaquents, slightly elevated and low in loam contents. Microarthropod Sampling and pH Measurement In 1959, samples were taken at three subsequent dates: 11 September, 9 October, and 30 October. Samples in 1987 were taken on one date, 9 October, just as on 30 October 2019. Samples were taken following a standard procedure, developed at the Institute for Applied Biological Research in Nature, Wageningen, the Netherlands (later merged into the Research Institute for Nature management, Institute for Forestry and Nature Research and Alterra resp., now known as Wageningen Environmental Research); this procedure has been published by Siepel and van de Bund in 1988 (Siepel and van de Bund, 1988). Each mineral soil sample has 100 cc: a volume of 5 cm diameter and 5 cm depth plus litter on top. In 1959, two samples per date were taken on each plot, making a total of 6 samples (only pooled data are available); in 1987 and in 2019, 4 and 5 samples for each plot were taken on, respectively (data per sample available). Soil cores were put on a Tullgren funnel for 1 week, during which temperature was increased from 35 to 45 °C, and then, microarthropods were collected in 70% alcohol and later put into 20% lactic acid for clarification and identification (Siepel, 1990; Siepel and van de Bund, 1988). The Tullgren funnel used for extraction (Siepel, 1990) has been used ever since 1936 and efficiency has not changed as the tool and protocol was the same all over the years. Identification was done to the species level as much as possible using at present the keys for Oribatida(Weigmann and G., 2006), for Gamasina (Lehtinen, 1994), for Uropodina (Karg, 1989), and for Collembola (Hopkin, 2007). Material from the extractions of 1959 and 1987 was re-examined as far as possible to check the correct species identification. In the 1959 and 1987 samples, only oribatid mites were identified to the species level, whereas in 1959, all species of Quadroppiidae, Oppiidae, and Suctobelbidae were pooled. In 2019, all microarthropods were identified to the species level. Sorting and identification of the 1959 microarthropods was carried out by an experienced acarologist (J.G. de Gunst), in 1987, this was done by a student (C. Arnold) and completed and checked by the second author. For the 2019 samples, we decided to demonstrate the potential difference in picking out the microarthropods from the extraction fluid into the slides for identification as part of the experiment: the first author made a first series of slides including all distinguished animals (dataset 2019 a), while the second author made an extra set of slides with the animals missed by the first (dataset 2019 b). The first author did know since the beginning that the second author would check all samples after her sorting session. In this way, we intended to demonstrate the potential difference in this crucial part of the procedure by a starting and an experienced professional. In the analysis, we compare dataset (2019 a) with (2019 a + b), in order to highlight the difference between a starting and an experienced acarologist. Nomenclature adopted was updated according to current standards, following, e.g., the checklists for Oribatida (Siepel et al., 2009), for Astigmatina (Siepel et al., 2016), and for Mesostigmata (Siepel, 2018). Values of pH-KCl were measured in the core material after the extraction of the microarthropods, both in 1959, 1987, and 2019.

We have four data files: 1959 hackfort microarthropods data.csv 1989 hackfort microarthropods data.csv 2019 hackfort microarthropods data.csv pH data Hackfort 1959-2019.csv.

Explanation of the variables in the datasets: higher taxon: Oribatida, Astigmata, Mesostigmata, Prostigmata, Collembola or Protura Name in De Gunst 1959: taxonomic identification by De Gunst in 1959 Valid name: Henk Siepel re-checked these species names in 2019 Plot： plot 1, plot 2, plot 3, plot 4, plot 5 a: identified by Yuxi Guo b: re-checked by Henk Siepel from remaining soil microarthropods in slide pH(KCL) and pH(H2O): pH values based on indicated methods