Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land
Journal of Arid Land  2026, Vol. 18 Issue (8): 1462-1479    DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridl.2026.08.009    
Research article     
From structure to assembly processes: how salinity regulates soil bacterial communities in arid regions
MOU Na1,2,3, ZHANG Yu1,2,3, MA Jie1,3,*(), LIU Ran1,3, XU Guiqing1,3
1 Key Laboratory of Ecological Safety and Sustainable Development in Arid Lands, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China
2 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
3 Fukang National Field Scientific Observation and Research Station for Desert Ecosystems, Fukang 831505, China
Download: HTML     PDF(4332KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Although salinity functions as a key environmental filter for soil microorganisms, its comprehensive effects on soil microbial community structure and assembly processes remain poorly understood, particularly in arid regions prone to salinization. In this study, soil bacterial communities along a natural salinity gradient at the edge of Ebinur Lake in Northwest China were investigated. Using 16S ribosomal RNA (16S rRNA) sequencing, we examined variations in soil bacterial community structure, co-occurrence patterns, and assembly mechanisms across different soil salinity groups, including lightly salinized soils (LSS), moderately salinized soils (MSS), and heavily salinized soils (HSS). The results showed that soil bacterial diversity varied significantly among salinity groups, with the highest value observed in LSS. Community dissimilarity increased notably with greater variations in salinity. Notably, a systematic shift in soil bacterial composition occurred along the salinity gradient, with salt-sensitive bacterial phyla (e.g., Acidobacteria and Gemmatimonadetes) being progressively replaced by salt-tolerant ones (e.g., Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes). Network analysis underscored that increased salinity led to reduced soil bacterial network complexity and stability. More positive correlations among soil bacteria occurred in HSS, suggesting a potential shift toward cooperative microbial strategies under severe salt stress. Moreover, the assembly processes governing soil bacterial communities transitioned from stochastic process, predominantly in LSS (71.43%) and MSS (80.00%), to deterministic process in HSS (66.66%). In summary, the results emphasize the multifaceted role of soil salinity in shaping soil bacterial communities in arid ecosystems, thereby enhancing the understanding of the impacts of soil salinization on soil microbial dynamics.

Key words： salinity      soil bacteria      bacterial community structure      co-occurrence network      community assembly      Ebinur Lake     
Received: 22 January 2026      Published: 31 August 2026
Corresponding Authors: *MA Jie (E-mail: majie@ms.xjb.ac.cn)
About author: First author contact:

Conceptualization: MOU Na, ZHANG Yu, MA Jie; Methodology: MOU Na, ZHANG Yu; Formal analysis: MOU Na, ZHANG Yu, MA Jie; Writing - original draft and preparation: MOU Na, ZHANG Yu; Writing - review and editing: LIU Ran, XU Guiqing; Funding acquisition: MA Jie, LIU Ran, XU Guiqing; Supervision: MA Jie, XU Guiqing. All authors approved the manuscript.
Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
MOU Na
ZHANG Yu
MA Jie
LIU Ran
XU Guiqing
Cite this article:

MOU Na, ZHANG Yu, MA Jie, LIU Ran, XU Guiqing. From structure to assembly processes: how salinity regulates soil bacterial communities in arid regions. Journal of Arid Land, 2026, 18(8): 1462-1479.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1016/j.jaridl.2026.08.009     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2026/V18/I8/1462

Fig. 1 Layout of the experimental design (a) and representative landscape views of different soil salinity groups (b-d). A1-A9, B1-B9, and C1-C9 represent the sampling sites along the three transects. LSS, lightly salinized soils; MSS, moderately salinized soils; HSS, heavily salinized soils.
Fig. 2 Soil bacterial community composition across three salinity groups. (a), average relative abundance of major bacterial phyla in total soil samples and soils across three salinity groups (LSS, MSS, and HSS); (b), Venn diagram showing shared and unique bacterial operational taxonomic units (OTUs) among the three salinity groups. The number and percentage of shared and unique OTUs are indicated in the Venn diagram.
Fig. 3 Correlations between soil salt content (SSC) and soil bacterial community diversity indices. (a), Shannon index; (b), Chao1 index; (c), phylogenetic diversity index. R2 indicates the coefficient of determination. The shaded area denote the 95.00% confidence intervals. The subplot within each panel shows the difference in each diversity index across three salinity groups. In each boxplot, the central line indicates the median, and the box bounds the interquartile range (IRQ). Whiskers extend to the most extreme data points within 1.5×IQR. Different lowercase letters above boxplots indicate significant differences at the P<0.05 level using Tukey's post hoc test.
Fig. 4 Constrained analysis of principal coordinates (CAP) for assessing the relationship between soil bacterial communities across three salinity groups and main environmental variables. SWC, soil water content; C/N, ratio of soil carbon to nitrogen. CAP1, the first axis of CAP; CAP2, the second axis of CAP.
Salinity group Node Link AD Random network index#
ACCr APLr NDr Mr
LSS 751 7310 19.47 0.05±0.01 2.57±0.02 5.02±0.15 0.18±0.01
MSS 750 5651 15.07 0.04±0.01 2.74±0.01 5.41±0.51 0.21±0.01
HSS 303 748 4.94 0.02±0.03 3.69±0.02 7.97±0.73 0.43±0.01
Salinity group Empirical network index
Me PER (%) NER (%) ACCe APLe NDe ADS
LSS 0.70 57.67 42.32 0.52 4.54 10.34 0.03
MSS 0.60 58.29 41.71 0.44 3.44 8.05 0.02
HSS 0.71 68.04 31.95 0.36 4.57 2.00 0.02
Table 1 Topological properties of the random and empirical networks of soil microbial communities across three salinity groups
Fig. 5 Co-occurrence networks and stability characteristics of soil bacterial communities across three salinity groups. (a-c), network structure in different salinity groups; (d and e), difference in stability and robustness of soil bacterial co-occurrence networks among salinity groups; (f), topological roles of soil bacteria. In Figure 5a-c, node size is proportional to degree; colors represent soil bacteria at the phylum level. Pink and blue edges indicate positive and negative correlations, respectively. In Figure 5d and e, the network stability was calculated as the absolute value of negative cohesion divided by positive cohesion. Robustness of each network was assessed by the slope of the fitted line between the proportion of removed nodes and the proportion of remaining nodes. In each boxplot, the central line indicates the median, and the box bounds the IQR. Whiskers extend to the most extreme data points within 1.5×IQR. Circles within and outside the box represent individual data points; circles beyond the whiskers are outliers. Different lowercase letters above boxplots indicate significant differences at the P<0.05 level using Tukey's post hoc test.
Fig. 6 Relative importance of deterministic and stochastic processes in soil bacterial community assembly. (a), variations of the β nearest taxon index (βNTI) in bacterial communities in different soil salinity groups; (b and c), contributions of different ecological processes to soil bacterial community assembly in different soil salinity groups; (d-f), fit of the bacterial neutral community model (NCM) in LSS, MSS, and HSS, respectively. In Figure 6a, the central line in each subplot indicates the median, and the box bounds the IQR. Whiskers extend to the most extreme data points within 1.5×IQR. Circles within and outside the box represent individual data points; circles beyond the whiskers are outliers. In Figure 6d-f, the green dotted lines indicate the reference lines where |βNTI|=2; points falling between them represent the dominance of stochastic process. The best fit of NCM is shown by the blue solid line, and the blue dotted lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals of the model predictions. Green and orange points represent OTUs that occurred more frequently and less frequently than predicted, respectively. R2 indicates the goodness-of-fit of NCM and Nm represents the dispersal rate within communities.
Salinity
group		 Replicates Sampling site Soil physical-chemical property
pH EC (dS/m) SWC (%) SSC (g/kg)
LSS 6 A8-A9, B8-B9,
and C8-C9		 8.67±0.12a 0.35±0.14a 1.75±0.10a 3.56±1.18a
MSS 11 A5-A7, B4-B7,
and C4-C7		 8.53±0.06a 0.52±0.06a 1.74±0.01a 7.59±0.60a
HSS 10 A1-A4, B1-B3,
and C1-C3		 8.58±0.04a 6.00±0.97b 3.50±0.51b 26.46±2.96b
All 27 8.58±0.04 2.51±0.63 2.34±0.21 13.65±2.37
Salinity
group		 Soil physical-chemical property Plant community property
SOC (g/kg) TN (g/kg) C/N Coverage (%) Dominate species
LSS 2.14±0.31a 0.32±0.03a 6.57±0.32b 20.50±3.10a Haloxylon persicum and Haloxylon ammodendron
MSS 2.87±0.11a 0.40±0.02a 7.23±0.39a 31.52±2.63a Reaumuria songarica, Haloxylon ammodendron, Seriphidium
santolinum, Alhagi sparsifolia, and Reaumuria songarica
HSS 10.44±2.65b 1.07±0.19b 8.86±0.82a 44.60±3.53b Tamarix ramosissima, Populus euphratica, Apocynum venetum, Phragmites australis, and Nitraria tangutorum
All 5.52±1.12 0.63±0.09 6.57±0.32 33.94±2.52
Table S1 Soil physical-chemical properties and dominant plant species at 27 sampling sites across three salinity groups
Phylum pH EC SOC TN SWC C/N SSC Plant coverage
Acidobacteria -0.22 -0.57** -0.35 -0.39* -0.43* -0.21 -0.57** -0.48*
Actinobacteria 0.05 -0.75** -0.72** -0.73 -0.52** -0.33 -0.80** -0.66**
Bacteroidetes -0.13 -0.02 0.10 0.11 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.21
Chloroflexi -0.21 0.63 0.43* 0.54 -0.51** -0.12 -0.51** -0.33
Cyanobacteria 0.12 0.58** 0.38 0.45* 0.51** 0.10 0.55** 0.33
Firmicutes 0.10 0.63** 0.51* 0.44* 0.56** 0.36 0.63** 0.38
Gemmatimonadetes -0.22 0.51** 0.50* 0.43* -0.73** -0.31 -0.68** -0.54*
Proteobacteria 0.06 -0.08 -0.04 0.03 0.01 -0.24 -0.08 -0.06
Verrucomicrobia -0.20 0.08 0.31 0.30 0.12 0.01 0.23 0.13
Table S2 Correlations between the main soil bacterial phyla and environmental variables
Fig. S1 Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of soil bacterial communities across three salinity groups based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity. LSS, lightly salinized soils; MSS, moderately salinized soils; HSS, heavily salinized soils; PCoA 1, the first axis of PCoA; PCoA 2, the second axis of PCoA.
Test method Statistic All groups LSS versus MSS LSS versus HSS MSS versus HSS
MRPP Delta 0.28 0.44 0.57 0.50
A 0.49 0.09 0.18 0.31
P <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
ANOSIM R 0.78 0.66 0.94 1.00
P <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
PERMANOVA R2 0.54 0.24 0.38 0.56
P <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Table S3 Dissimilarity tests of soil bacterial community between different salinity groups
Environmental variable Mantel test Partial Mantel test
Mantel's r P value Mantel's r P value
SSC 0.73 <0.01 0.58 <0.01
TN 0.59 <0.01 0.16 0.07
SWC 0.58 <0.01 0.16 0.04
SOC 0.53 <0.01 0.03 0.37
C/N 0.36 <0.01 -0.01 0.48
pH -0.15 0.99 -0.07 0.85
Table S4 Mantel's correlations between soil bacterial communities and environmental variables
Environmental variable df Explained variance F value P value
SSC 1 0.84 6.69 <0.01
SWC 1 0.19 1.53 0.05
C/N 1 0.18 1.46 0.17
pH 1 0.13 1.02 0.34
Residual 23 2.78
Axis df Explained variance F value P value
CAP1 1 2.06 16.29 <0.01
CAP2 1 0.26 2.58 0.05
CAP3 1 0.17 1.38 0.32
CAP4 1 0.08 0.61 0.87
Residual 22 2.78
Table S5 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the main environmental variables correlated with soil bacterial beta-diversity in constrained analysis of principal coordinates (CAP) with 999 times permutations
Fig. S2 Relationship between differences of soil salt content (ΔSSC) and Bray-Curtis dissimilarity of soil bacterial communities. R2 represents the coefficient of determination. The shaded area denotes the 95.00% confidence intervals.
[1]   Bahram M, Hildebrand F, Forslund S K, et al. 2018. Structure and function of the global topsoil microbiome. Nature, 560: 233-237.
doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0386-6
[2]   Banerjee S, Baah-Acheamfour M, Carlyle C, et al. 2016. Determinants of bacterial communities in Canadian agroforestry systems. Environmental Microbiology, 18(6): 1805-1816.
doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12986 pmid: 26184386
[3]   Barberán A, Bates S, Casamayor E, et al. 2012. Using network analysis to explore co-occurrence patterns in soil microbial communities. The ISME Journal, 6: 343-351.
doi: 10.1038/ismej.2011.119
[4]   Bolyen E, Rideout J R, Dillon M R, et al. 2019. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nature Biotechnology, 37: 852-857.
doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9 pmid: 31341288
[5]   Canfora L, Lo Papa G, Antisari L, et al. 2015. Spatial microbial community structure and biodiversity analysis in "extreme" hypersaline soils of a semiarid Mediterranean area. Applied Soil Ecology, 93: 120-129.
doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.04.014
[6]   Chen H H, Ma K Y, Huang Y, et al. 2022. Significant response of microbial community to increased salinity across wetland ecosystems. Geoderma, 415: 115778, doi: 10.1016/2022.115778.
[7]   de Vries F, Griffiths R, Bailey M, et al. 2018. Soil bacterial networks are less stable under drought than fungal networks. Nature Communications, 9(1): 3033, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05516-7.
[8]   Delgado-Baquerizo M, Oliverio A, Brewer T, et al. 2018. A global atlas of the dominant bacteria found in soil. Science, 359(6373): 320-325.
doi: 10.1126/science.aap9516 pmid: 29348236
[9]   Delgado-Baquerizo M, Doulcier G, Eldridge D, et al. 2020. Increases in aridity lead to drastic shifts in the assembly of dryland complex microbial networks. Land Degradation & Development, 31(3): 346-355.
doi: 10.1002/ldr.v31.3
[10]   Deng Y, Jiang Y H, Yang Y F, et al. 2012. Molecular ecological network analyses. BMC Bioinformatics, 13(1): 113, doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-13-113.
[11]   Dong X P, Zhang Z H, Lu Y, et al. 2024. Depth-dependent responses of soil bacterial communities to salinity in an arid region. Science of The Total Environment, 949: 175129, doi: 10.1016/2024.175129.
[12]   D'Odorico P, Bhattachan A, Davis K. 2013. Global desertification: Drivers and feedbacks. Advances in Water Resources, 51: 326-344.
doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.01.013
[13]   Edgar R. 2010. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics, 26(19): 2460-2461.
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461 pmid: 20709691
[14]   Fang J, Adams J, Liu Z H, et al. 2025. Soil salinity and moisture have contrasting effects on deterministic versus stochastic assembly of bacterial communities in alpine lake shores. Applied Soil Ecology, 211: 106115, doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2025.106115.
[15]   Feng W, Zhang Y Q, Lai Z R, et al. 2021. Soil bacterial and eukaryotic co-occurrence networks across a desert climate gradient in northern China. Land Degradation & Development, 32(5): 1938-1950.
doi: 10.1002/ldr.v32.5
[16]   Fierer N, Jackson R. 2006. The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(3): 626-631.
[17]   Fierer N, Leff J, Adams B, et al. 2012. Cross-biome metagenomic analyses of soil microbial communities and their functional attributes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(52): 21390-21395.
[18]   Freilich S, Kreimer A, Meilijson I, et al. 2010. The large-scale organization of the bacterial network of ecological co-occurrence interactions. Nucleic Acids Research, 38(12): 3857-3868.
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq118 pmid: 20194113
[19]   Friedman J, Alm E J. 2012. Inferring correlation networks from genomic survey data. PLOS Computational Biology, 8(9): e1002687, doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002687.
[20]   Fu W, Chen B D, Jansa J, et al. 2022. Contrasting community responses of root and soil dwelling fungi to extreme drought in a temperate grassland. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 169: 108670, doi: 10.1016/2022.108670.
[21]   Gao C, Xu L, Montoya L, et al. 2022. Co-occurrence networks reveal more complexity than community composition in resistance and resilience of microbial communities. Nature Communications, 13: 3867, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31343-y.
pmid: 35790741
[22]   He M Y, Shen C, Peng S, et al. 2024. The influence of soil salinization, induced by the backwater effect of the Yellow River, on microbial community dynamics and ecosystem functioning in arid regions. Environmental Research, 262: 119854, doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2024.119854.
[23]   Hernandez D, David A, Menges E, et al. 2021. Environmental stress destabilizes microbial networks. The ISME Journal, 15: 1722-1734.
doi: 10.1038/s41396-020-00882-x
[24]   Herren C, McMahon K. 2017. Cohesion: a method for quantifying the connectivity of microbial communities. The ISME Journal, 11: 2426-2438.
doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.91
[25]   Hollister E, Engledow A, Hammett A, et al. 2010. Shifts in microbial community structure along an ecological gradient of hypersaline soils and sediments. The ISME Journal, 4: 829-838.
doi: 10.1038/ismej.2010.3
[26]   Huo X Y, Ren C J, Wang D X, et al. 2023. Microbial community assembly and its influencing factors of secondary forests in Qinling Mountains. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 184: 109075, doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2023.109075.
[27]   Jiao S, Yang Y F, Xu Y Q, et al. 2019. Balance between community assembly processes mediates species coexistence in agricultural soil microbiomes across eastern China. The ISME Journal, 14: 202-216.
doi: 10.1038/s41396-019-0522-9
[28]   Li C C, Jin L, Zhang C, et al. 2023. Destabilized microbial networks with distinct performances of abundant and rare biospheres in maintaining networks under increasing salinity stress. iMeta, 2(1): e79, doi: 10.1002/imt2.79.
[29]   Li X, Wang A C, Wan W J, et al. 2021. High salinity inhibits soil bacterial community mediating nitrogen cycling. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 87(21): e01366-21, doi: 10.1128/AEM.01366-21.
[30]   Liszka M J, Clark M E, Schneider E, et al. 2012. Nature versus nurture: Developing enzymes that function under extreme conditions. Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, 3: 77-102.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-061010-114239 pmid: 22468597
[31]   Louca S, Polz M, Mazel F, et al. 2018. Function and functional redundancy in microbial systems. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2: 936-943.
[32]   Ma B, Wang H Z, Dsouza M, et al. 2016. Geographic patterns of co-occurrence network topological features for soil microbiota at continental scale in eastern China. The ISME Journal, 10: 1891-1901.
doi: 10.1038/ismej.2015.261
[33]   Maestre F, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Jeffries T, et al. 2015. Increasing aridity reduces soil microbial diversity and abundance in global drylands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(51): 15684-15689.
[34]   Manzoni S, Schimel J, Porporato A. 2012. Responses of soil microbial communities to water stress: results from a meta-analysis. Ecology, 93(4): 930-938.
doi: 10.1890/11-0026.1 pmid: 22690643
[35]   Mo Y Y, Peng F, Gao X F, et al. 2021. Low shifts in salinity determined assembly processes and network stability of microeukaryotic plankton communities in a subtropical urban reservoir. Microbiome, 9: 128, doi: 10.1186/s40168-021-01079-w.
pmid: 34082826
[36]   Needham D, Sachdeva R, Fuhrman J. 2017. Ecological dynamics and co-occurrence among marine phytoplankton, bacteria and myoviruses shows microdiversity matters. The ISME Journal, 11: 1614-1629.
doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.29
[37]   Neilson J W, Califf K, Cardona C, et al. 2017. Significant impacts of increasing aridity on the arid soil microbiome. mSystems, 2(3): e00195-16, doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00195-16.
[38]   Pan H, Gao H, Peng Z, et al. 2022. Aridity threshold induces abrupt change of soil abundant and rare bacterial biogeography in dryland ecosystems. mSystems, 7: 01309-21, doi: 10.1128/msystems.01309-21.
[39]   Rath K, Rousk J. 2015. Salt effects on the soil microbial decomposer community and their role in organic carbon cycling: A review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 81: 108-123.
doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.11.001
[40]   Rath K, Maheshwari A, Bengtson P, et al. 2016. Comparative toxicities of salts on microbial processes in soil. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 82(7): 2012-2020.
doi: 10.1128/AEM.04052-15 pmid: 26801570
[41]   Rath K, Maheshwari A, Rousk J. 2017. The impact of salinity on the microbial response to drying and rewetting in soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 108: 17-26.
doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.01.018
[42]   Rath K, Murphy D, Rousk J. 2019. The microbial community size, structure, and process rates along natural gradients of soil salinity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 138: 107607, doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.107607.
[43]   Shi S J, Nuccio E E, Shi Z J, et al. 2016. The interconnected rhizosphere: High network complexity dominates rhizosphere assemblages. Ecology Letters, 19(8): 926-936.
doi: 10.1111/ele.12630 pmid: 27264635
[44]   Stegen J C, Lin X J, Fredrickson J K, et al. 2013. Quantifying community assembly processes and identifying features that impose them. The ISME Journal, 7: 2069-2079.
doi: 10.1038/ismej.2013.93
[45]   Tedersoo L, Bahram M, Polme S, et al. 2014. Global diversity and geography of soil fungi. Science, 346(6213): 1256688, doi: 10.1126/science.1256688.
[46]   Van Horn D, Okie J, Buelow H, et al. 2014. Soil microbial responses to increased moisture and organic resources along a salinity gradient in a Polar Desert. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 80(10): 3034-3043.
doi: 10.1128/AEM.03414-13 pmid: 24610850
[47]   Wang H T, Gilbert J, Zhu Y G, et al. 2018. Salinity is a key factor driving the nitrogen cycling in the mangrove sediment. Science of The Total Environment, 631-632: 1342-1349.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.102
[48]   Wang Y G, Li Y, Xiao D N. 2008. Catchment scale spatial variability of soil salt content in agricultural oasis, Northwest China. Environmental Geology, 56: 439-446.
doi: 10.1007/s00254-007-1181-0
[49]   Wei Y X, Chen L J, Feng Q, et al. 2024. Structure and assembly mechanism of soil bacterial community under different soil salt intensities in arid and semiarid regions. Ecological Indicators, 158: 111631, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.111631.
[50]   Wu L W, Yang Y F, Chen S, et al. 2016. Long-term successional dynamics of microbial association networks in anaerobic digestion processes. Water Research, 104: 1-10.
doi: S0043-1354(16)30586-3 pmid: 27497626
[51]   Yang D L, Kato H, Kawatsu K, et al. 2022. Reconstruction of a soil microbial network induced by stress temperature. Microbiology Spectrum, 10(5): e02748-22, doi: 10.1128/spectrum.02748-22.
[52]   Yuan M, Guo X, Wu L W, et al. 2021. Climate warming enhances microbial network complexity and stability. Nature Climate Change, 11: 343-348.
doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-00989-9
[53]   Zhang G L, Bai J H, Tebbe C C, et al. 2021. Salinity controls soil microbial community structure and function in coastal estuarine wetlands. Environmental Microbiology, 23(2): 1020-1037.
doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.15281 pmid: 33073448
[54]   Zhang G L, Bai J H, Zhai Y J, et al. 2024. Microbial diversity and functions in saline soils: A review from a biogeochemical perspective. Journal of Advanced Research, 59: 129-140.
doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2023.06.015
[55]   Zhang K P, Shi Y, Cui X Q, et al. 2019. Salinity is a key determinant for soil microbial communities in a desert ecosystem. mSystems, 4(1): e00225-18, doi: 10.1128/msystems.00225-18.
[56]   Zhou J Z, Deng Y, Luo F, et al. 2010. Functional molecular ecological networks. mBio, 1(4): e00169-10, doi: 10.1128/mBio.00169-10.
[57]   Zhou J Z, Deng Y, Luo F, et al. 2011. Phylogenetic molecular ecological network of soil microbial communities in response to elevated CO2. mBio, 2(4): e00122-11, doi: 10.1128/mBio.00122-11.
[58]   Zhou J Z, Ning D L. 2017. Stochastic community assembly: does it matter in Microbial Ecology? Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 81(4): e00002-17, doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00002-17.
[59]   Zhou X Q, Guo Z Y, Chen C R, et al. 2017. Soil microbial community structure and diversity are largely influenced by soil pH and nutrient quality in 78-year-old tree plantations. Biogeosciences, 14(8): 2101-2111.
doi: 10.5194/bg-14-2101-2017
[1] ZHUANG Chanyu, LI Xueqin, LIU Xigang, PAN Yaqing, Gyrat AZMAT, YAN Xingfu, KANG Peng. Diversity, structure, and network relationships of microbial communities in different areas of the upper reaches of the Jinghe River, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2026, 18(7): 1213-1231.
[2] DU Linjuan, GAO Tong, CHEN Zhijun, PAN Cunzhen, HAN Jingwen, TIAN Yu, XIONG Yunwu, HUANG Guanhua. Effects of soil salinity on nitrogen fate and use efficiency in a maize (Zea mays L.) field under arid conditions[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2026, 18(6): 1059-1075.
[3] HUANG Cheng, HOU Shengtong, WANG Bao, SONG Yuchuan, Aikeremu ABULATIJIANG, MIN Jiuzhou, SHENG Jiandong, JIANG Ping'an, WANG Ze, CHENG Junhui. Effects of a combination of biochar and cow manure on soil nutrients and cotton yield in salinized fields[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2025, 17(7): 1014-1026.
[4] Patrick-Nino OLOUMANE, Carlo PREVIL, Wael El ZEREY, Asma El ZEREY-BELASKRI. Applying joint species distribution modelling to assess the relative influence of ecological filters on community assembly in the El Bayadh steppe, Algeria[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2025, 17(7): 979-996.
[5] YANG Qianqian, WU Xue, Bota BAHETHAN, TIAN Cuiping, YANG Xianyao, WANG Xiantao. Variations of soil bacterial community structure and function under different habitats of Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb. in the upper reaches of the Tarim River, Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2025, 17(4): 560-574.
[6] Zulfira RAKHMANKULOVA, Elena SHUYSKAYA, Maria PROKOFIEVA, Kristina TODERICH, Pavel VORONIN. Plasticity of photorespiratory carbon concentration mechanism in Sedobassia sedoides (Pall.) Freitag & G. Kadereit under elevated CO2 concentration and salinity[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(7): 963-982.
[7] XU Wenjie, DING Jianli, BAO Qingling, WANG Jinjie, XU Kun. Improving the accuracy of precipitation estimates in a typical inland arid area of China using a dynamic Bayesian model averaging approach[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(3): 331-354.
[8] Mohamed K EL-GHANNAM, Fatma WASSAR, Sabah MORSY, Mohamed HAFEZ, Chiter M PARIHAR, Kent O BURKEY, Ahmed M ABDALLAH. Controlled drainage in the Nile River delta of Egypt: a promising approach for decreasing drainage off-site effects and enhancing yield and water use efficiency of wheat[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(4): 460-476.
[9] Samire ROSTAMI, Ahmad ALIJANPOUR, Abbas BANJ SHAFIEI, Hesam AHMADY-BIRGANI, Hadi BEYGI HEIDARLOU. Investigation on biological activities for combating desertification in the western shores of Lake Urmia, Northwest Iran[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(3): 297-309.
[10] REN Xiaohui, YU Ruihong, LIU Xinyu, SUN Heyang, GENG Yue, QI Zhen, ZHANG Zhuangzhuang, LI Xiangwei, WANG Jun, ZHU Penghang, GUO Zhiwei, WANG Lixin, XU Jifei. Spatial changes and driving factors of lake water quality in Inner Mongolia, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(2): 164-179.
[11] ZHANG Zhaoyong, GUO Jieyi, WANG Pengwei. Occurrence, sources, and relationships of soil microplastics with adsorbed heavy metals in the Ebinur Lake Basin, Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(8): 910-924.
[12] WANG Kun, WANG Xiaoxia, FEI Hongyan, WAN Chuanyu, HAN Fengpeng. Changes in diversity, composition and assembly processes of soil microbial communities during Robinia pseudoacacia L. restoration on the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(5): 561-575.
[13] Besma ZARAI, Christian WALTER, Didier MICHOT, Jean P MONTOROI, Mohamed HACHICHA. Integrating multiple electromagnetic data to map spatiotemporal variability of soil salinity in Kairouan region, Central Tunisia[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(2): 186-202.
[14] WANG Yuejian, GU Xinchen, YANG Guang, YAO Junqiang, LIAO Na. Impacts of climate change and human activities on water resources in the Ebinur Lake Basin, Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(6): 581-598.
[15] TENG Zeyu, XIAO Shengchun, CHEN Xiaohong, HAN Chao. Soil bacterial characteristics between surface and subsurface soils along a precipitation gradient in the Alxa Desert, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(3): 257-273.