Ecological consequences of carbon substrate identity and diversity in a laboratory study.

Plants return a wide range of carbon (C) substrates to the soil system. The decomposition rate of these substrates is determined by their chemical nature, yet few studies have examined the relative ecological role of specific substrates (i.e., substrate identity) or mixtures of substrates. Carbon substrate identity and diversity may alter soil chemistry and soil community composition, resulting in changes in belowground ecosystem functions such as decomposition and nutrient transfer, creating feedbacks that may affect plant growth and the aboveground community. A laboratory experiment was set up in which eight C substrates of varying chemical complexity were added to a base soil singly, in pairs, fours, or with all eight together every four days over a 92-day period. After 92 days these soils were analyzed for changes in chemistry, microbial community structure, and components of ecosystem functioning. The identity of the added C substrates significantly affected soil chemistry, microbial basal and substrate-induced respiration, and soil microbial community structure measured by either the catabolic response profile (CRP) technique or phospholipid fatty acid composition. These belowground changes strongly affected the ability of the soil microflora to decompose cellulose paper, probably because of differential effects of the C substrates on soil energy supplies and enzyme activities. The addition of C substrates to soils also reduced plant growth compared to the unamended control soil, but less so in soils amended with a tannin than those amended with other substrates. Carbon substrate diversity effects saturated at low diversity levels, tended to have neutral or negative effects on ecosystem functions, and depended strongly on which C substrates were added. It increased CRP compound use but had little effect on other measures of the soil microbial community. Overall, results showed that the chemical nature of C substrates added to soil, and sometimes their diversity, can affect the soil microbial community and soil chemistry, which subsequently affect other ecosystem processes such as decomposition and plant growth. The identity and diversity of substrates that plants add to soil may therefore have important consequences for both above- and belowground ecosystem functions

Appendix B. Effect of C substrate treatment and blocking on soil chemistry, soil community measures, and ecosystem functions for data from all 22 treatments, as shown by ANOVA.

Effect of C substrate treatment and blocking on soil chemistry, soil community measures, and ecosystem functions for data from all 22 treatments, as shown by ANOVA

Appendix C. Effect of treatment and blocking on the response of variables to C substrate mixing for the 13 treatments containing more than one C substrate, as shown by ANOVA.

Effect of treatment and blocking on the response of variables to C substrate mixing for the 13 treatments containing more than one C substrate, as shown by ANOVA

Appendix A. Details of catabolic response profile compounds used.

Details of catabolic response profile compounds used

Effects of Glutamine on Gastric Emptying of Low- and High-Nutrient Drinks in Healthy Young Subjects—Impact on Glycaemia

Glutamine is a potent stimulus for the release of glucagon-like peptide-1, which increases postprandial insulin and slows gastric emptying (GE). We determined the effects of glutamine on GE of, and glycaemic responses to, low- and high-nutrient drinks in eight healthy males (mean age 21.6 ± 0.7 years and BMI 22.9 ± 0.7 kg/m2). Participants were studied on four occasions on which they consumed either a low-nutrient (beef soup; 18 kcal) or high-nutrient (75 g dextrose; 255 kcal) drink, each with or without 30 g of glutamine (120 kcal), in a randomised, crossover design. GE (2D ultrasound), blood glucose and plasma insulin concentrations were measured concurrently. Glutamine slowed GE (half emptying time (T50)) of both low- (45 ± 3 min vs. 26 ± 2 min, p < 0.001), and high-nutrient, (100 ± 5 min vs. 77 ± 5 min, p = 0.03) drinks, however, there was no effect on GE of the high nutrient drinks when expressed as kcal/min (3.39 ± 0.21 kcal/min vs. 3.81 ± 0.20 kcal/min, p = 0.25). There was no change in blood glucose after the low-nutrient drinks with or without glutamine, despite a slight increase in plasma insulin with glutamine (p = 0.007). The rise in blood glucose following the high-nutrient drink (p = 0.0001) was attenuated during the first 60 min by glutamine (p = 0.007). We conclude that in healthy subjects, glutamine slows GE of both low- and high-nutrient drinks comparably and attenuates the rise in blood glucose after the high-nutrient glucose drink