Bastida et al. (2021) analyzed 435 globally distributed soils and reported that soil microbial diversity and biomass follow a unimodal relationship, that soil carbon content is the dominant environmental driver of microbial biomass and of the richness-to-biomass ratio, and that this ratio correlates negatively with soil respiration; they also mapped biomass and richness-to-biomass ratios globally with a machine-learning (Cubist) model. The authors themselves flagged what remains unresolved: the correlational design cannot disentangle the causal direction between soil carbon and microbial biomass (because microbial residues and metabolites themselves stabilize as soil carbon); no independent global database pairs diversity with biomass, so the maps remain unvalidated; and PLFA-based and fumigation-based biomass estimates disagree several-fold in the slope of the biomass–carbon relationship. Later work — an independent global microbial-biomass-carbon map with two-decade trends (Patoine et al. 2022), a continental European confirmation of the pattern (Siles et al. 2025), and evidence for sublinear biomass scaling with soil carbon (Chatterjee 2026) — advanced neighboring questions but left the causal, validation, and method-reconciliation core open.

Background

The relationship between biodiversity and biomass is a classic question of community ecology, originating in plant studies that postulated resource availability as a key regulator of productivity and species richness. Whether an analogous relationship holds for soil microorganisms — which harbor much of Earth's microbial diversity and drive decomposition and nutrient cycling — was, until recently, largely unknown at the global scale.

Bastida et al. (2021) addressed this with a cross-biome field survey of 435 topsoil samples from 87 locations spanning the continents. Microbial biomass (the total mass of living bacterial and fungal cells per unit of dry soil) was measured as phospholipid fatty acids (PLFAs: membrane lipids extracted from soil, whose total concentration and group-specific marker fatty acids — such as the fungal marker 18:2ω6 — estimate total, bacterial, and fungal biomass). Diversity was measured as amplicon-based richness of bacteria (16S rRNA gene sequencing) and fungi (18S rRNA gene sequencing); soil respiration was measured in the laboratory. The study reported three main results. First, microbial diversity and biomass follow a unimodal ("humped-back") relationship across biomes. Second, structural equation modeling (SEM: a multivariate statistical technique that estimates direct and indirect pathways among correlated variables, used here as hypothesis exploration rather than causal proof) indicated that soil carbon (C) content indirectly determines microbial diversity via its strong positive effect on microbial biomass, and soil C was the environmental variable most strongly (negatively) correlated with the standardized richness-to-biomass ratio (richness divided by biomass, each first standardized to the interval [0, 1] across the survey to weight them equally, yielding a unitless index of how many taxa are supported per unit of microbial biomass). Third, using the Cubist algorithm (a rule-based regression-tree machine-learning method), the authors produced global 25-km-resolution maps of microbial biomass and of the richness-to-biomass ratio, and found this ratio negatively correlated with soil respiration.

The authors explicitly flagged three limitations that define the open problem. First, no alternative global database contains both diversity and biomass measurements from the same soils, so the global maps could not be independently cross-validated. Second, causation cannot be deciphered from the correlational design: soil C derives partly from aboveground plant inputs, but microbial biomass and microbial metabolites themselves contribute to soil C stabilization via associations with soil minerals, so soil C and microbial biomass are causally intertwined in both directions. Third, converting PLFA data to microbial biomass carbon using the equation of Bailey et al. (2002) yielded a soil-C-to-biomass slope (0.041) several-fold higher than earlier global estimates based on chloroform fumigation-extraction (a competing biomass method in which soil is fumigated to kill and lyse microbial cells and the released carbon is extracted and quantified): 0.013 in Fierer et al. (2009) and 0.009 in the meta-analysis of Xu et al. (2013). The paper additionally noted that the fungal PLFA marker 18:2ω6 can also originate from other eukaryotic cells, and that only bacteria and fungi were surveyed, leaving other soil organism groups unexamined.

Subsequent work has advanced neighboring territory without closing these gaps: an independent global map of microbial biomass carbon and its 1992–2013 trends (Patoine et al. 2022); a synthesis of carbon-addition experiments showing that microbial biomass increases only sublinearly, saturating, with carbon inputs (Craig et al. 2021); evidence that microbial necromass (dead microbial residue) is a major source of stable soil organic carbon (Wang et al. 2021), which sharpens the bidirectional-causality problem; a meta-analysis showing nitrogen fertilization weakens the soil-C–diversity coupling (Yang et al. 2022); a continental-scale confirmation of the unimodal diversity–biomass pattern and the primacy of soil C for richness-to-biomass ratios in ~500 European soils (Siles et al. 2025); and a global analysis reporting sublinear power-law scaling of microbial biomass carbon with soil organic carbon (Chatterjee 2026).

Problem Statement

The problem is to convert the correlational global relationship reported by Bastida et al. (2021) — soil carbon content as the dominant environmental driver of microbial biomass, which in turn shapes microbial diversity and the richness-to-biomass ratio — into a causal, independently validated, and method-robust quantitative account of the soil carbon–microbial biomass–diversity coupling across global biomes. The common objective uniting the requested results is to establish that coupling as trustworthy global knowledge. Components 1–3 correspond to the three limitations the authors themselves flagged, and each may be pursued independently. Component 4 is a generality extension grounded in caveats the paper noted.

  1. Causal directionality: determine the direction and relative magnitude of causation between soil carbon content and microbial biomass at the global scale, separating the plant-input pathway (soil carbon → microbial biomass) from the microbial-formation pathway (microbial biomass → stabilized soil carbon via necromass and metabolites associated with minerals). Correlational or structural-equation evidence alone does not answer this component.

  2. Independent validation: assemble or exploit a paired dataset (microbial diversity and microbial biomass measured on the same soils, collected independently of the original 435-sample survey) to test the published Cubist global maps of microbial biomass and of the richness-to-biomass ratio, quantifying where and why the predictions hold or fail across biomes.

  3. Method reconciliation: reconcile the several-fold discrepancy between PLFA-derived and fumigation-derived estimates of the soil-carbon-to-microbial-biomass relationship (slope 0.041 versus 0.009–0.013).

  4. Generality: establish whether the soil-carbon-driven diversity–biomass coupling and its functional consequences (for respiration and for other soil processes such as nutrient cycling and carbon sequestration) extend to soil organism groups beyond bacteria and fungi, to more specific fungal biomass markers than 18:2ω6, and to biomes undersampled in the original survey.

References

  1. Bastida F, Eldridge DJ, García C, Kenny Png G, Bardgett RD, Delgado-Baquerido M (2021) Soil microbial diversity–biomass relationships are driven by soil carbon content across global biomes. The ISME Journal 15(7):2081–2091. doi:10.1038/s41396-021-00906-0, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-00906-0
  2. Bailey VL, Peacock AD, Smith JL, Bolton H (2002) Relationships between soil microbial biomass determined by chloroform fumigation–extraction, substrate-induced respiration, and phospholipid fatty acid analysis. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 34(9):1385–1389. doi:10.1016/S0038-0717(02)00070-6, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(02)00070-6
  3. Fierer N, Strickland MS, Liptzin D, Bradford MA, Cleveland CC (2009) Global patterns in belowground communities. Ecology Letters 12(11):1238–1249. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01360.x, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01360.x
  4. Xu X, Thornton PE, Post WM (2013) A global analysis of soil microbial biomass carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in terrestrial ecosystems. Global Ecology and Biogeography 22(6):737–749. doi:10.1111/geb.12029, https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12029
  5. Craig ME, Mayes MA, Sulman BN, Walker AP (2021) Biological mechanisms may contribute to soil carbon saturation patterns. Global Change Biology 27(12):2633–2644. doi:10.1111/gcb.15584, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15584
  6. Wang B, An S, Liang C, Liu Y, Kuzyakov Y (2021) Microbial necromass as the source of soil organic carbon in global ecosystems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 162:108422. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108422, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108422
  7. Patoine G, Eisenhauer N, Cesarz S, Phillips HRP, Xu X, Zhang L, Guerra CA (2022) Drivers and trends of global soil microbial carbon over two decades. Nature Communications 13:4195. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-31833-z, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31833-z
  8. Yang Y, Chen X, Liu L, Li T, Dou Y, Qiao J, Wang Y, An S, Chang SX (2022) Nitrogen fertilization weakens the linkage between soil carbon and microbial diversity: A global meta-analysis. Global Change Biology 28(21):6446–6461. doi:10.1111/gcb.16361, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16361
  9. Smith LC, Orgiazzi A, Eisenhauer N, Cesarz S, Lochner A, Jones A, Bastida F, Patoine G, Reitz T, Buscot F, Rillig MC, Heintz-Buschart A, Lehmann A, Guerra CA (2021) Large-scale drivers of relationships between soil microbial properties and organic carbon across Europe. Global Ecology and Biogeography 30(10):2070–2083. doi:10.1111/geb.13371, https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13371
  10. Yang X, Yue L, Wu Y, Wang B, Wu L, Liu S, Chen H, Chen D (2023) The validity of ecological hypotheses concerning aboveground organisms for soil microbial biomass and diversity across soil depths on the Mongolian Plateau. Applied Soil Ecology 181:104679. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2022.104679, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2022.104679
  11. Siles JA, Vera A, Labouyrie M, van den Hoogen J, Crowther TW, Romero F, Tedersoo L, García C, Jones A, Panagos P, van der Heijden MGA, Orgiazzi A, Bastida F (2025) Land use interacts with climate to influence microbial diversity-to-biomass ratios across Europe via soil organic carbon and nitrogen. Molecular Ecology 34(20):e17806. doi:10.1111/mek.17806, https://doi.org/10.1111/mek.17806
  12. Chatterjee A (2026) Global sublinear scaling between soil microbial biomass carbon and soil organic carbon across biomes. Applied Soil Ecology 225:107238. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2026.107238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2026.107238
  13. Luo X, Xu J, Yang F, Li J, Li B, Fang C, Zhang G, Nie M (2026) Global fungal diversity and biomass in anoxic wetlands. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 110285. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2026.110285, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2026.110285