Aquatic Sciences

, 80:43 | Cite as

Litter decomposition is driven by microbes and is more influenced by litter quality than environmental conditions in oil palm streams with different riparian types

  • Darshanaa Chellaiah
  • Catherine M. Yule
Research Article


Rapid and extensive conversion of tropical forests into oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) (OP) plantations pose serious threats to tropical stream processes. To mitigate land use change impacts on stream ecosystems, retention of riparian vegetation is typically proposed. We evaluated the effectiveness of a gradient of riparian qualities in oil palm streams: (1) natural forest; (2) OP-native forested buffer; (3) OP-native understory, no chemical input (OPOP) and (4) OP-no buffer, to mitigate impacts on in-stream litter processing. Leaf bag method entry using two leaf species of contrasting litter quality (Macaranga tanarius and OP) were deployed into streams. Across all riparian types, microbes were the main drivers of decomposition with negligible macroinvertebrate shredding activities. Leaf decomposition rates were more influenced by litter quality than changes in environmental conditions in the different riparian types. Across all sites, native Macaranga litter decomposed approximately 5× faster than OP litter possibly due to high structural compounds in OP leaves. Macaranga litter was also more susceptible to changes in environmental conditions as leaf decomposition positively correlated to phosphorus and potassium content. However, OP leaves were resilient to stream environmental changes and decomposed slower only at OPOP sites. These varying responses reveal complex interactions within tropical stream ecosystems. We suggest that riparian management strategies as well as plans to restore functioning in degraded tropical streams should ensure a wide diversity of native riparian tree species in order to effectively mitigate adverse OP plantation impacts on tropical stream functioning.


Microbial decomposition Riparian buffer Land use change Litter quality Stream functioning 



We thank all staff from Sabah Softwoods Berhad and Benta Wawasan Sdn Bhd oil palm plantations for all their help and field support throughout sample collections, especially Mr. Ram Nathan and Mr. Jamalludin Paseh and family from SSB and also Mr. Yusrin Yusof and the Survey Department crew from BW. Also, many thanks to Dr. Holly Barclay for supervision in the completion of DC’s project. Many thanks to Mr. Theebaan Govindasamy for lab and field assistance. This work was part of DC’s Ph.D. project with field work and laboratory analyses performed with funding from Monash University Malaysia and The Rufford Foundation (17634-1) obtained by DC.


  1. Abelho M, Graça M (1996) Effects of eucalyptus afforestation on leaf litter dynamics and macroinvertebrate community structure of streams in Central Portugal. Hydrobiologia 324:195–204Google Scholar
  2. Almeida SM, Silva LC, Cardoso MR, Cerqueira PV, Juen L, Santos MP (2016) The effects of oil palm plantations on the functional diversity of Amazonian birds. J Trop Ecol 32:510–525Google Scholar
  3. Ardon M, Stallcup LA, Pringle CM (2006) Does leaf quality mediate the stimulation of leaf breakdown by phosphorus in neotropical streams? Freshw Biol 51:618–633Google Scholar
  4. Bakker MA, Carreño-Rocabado G, Poorter L (2011) Leaf economics traits predict litter decomposition of tropical plants and differ among land use types. Funct Ecol 25:473–483Google Scholar
  5. Bärlocher F, Graça MA (2002) Exotic riparian vegetation lowers fungal diversity but not leaf decomposition in Portuguese streams. Freshw Biol 47:1123–1135Google Scholar
  6. Barlow J, Gardner TA, Ferreira LV, Peres CA (2007) Litter fall and decomposition in primary, secondary and plantation forests in the Brazilian Amazon. For Ecol Manag 247:91–97Google Scholar
  7. Batista D, Pascoal C, Cássio F (2012) Impacts of warming on aquatic decomposers along a gradient of cadmium stress. Environ Pollut 169:35–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Behera S, Rao B, Suresh K, Manoja K (2016) Soil nutrient status and leaf nutrient norms in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) plantations grown on southern plateau of India. Proc Natl Acad Sci India B 86:691–697Google Scholar
  9. Biasi C, Graça MA, Santos S, Ferreira V (2017) Nutrient enrichment in water more than in leaves affects aquatic microbial litter processing. Oecologia 184:555–568PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bilotta G, Brazier R (2008) Understanding the influence of suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biota. Water Res 42:2849–2861PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyero L, Ramírez A, Dudgeon D, Pearson RG (2009) Are tropical streams really different? J N Am Benthol Soc 28:397–403Google Scholar
  12. Boyero L et al (2016) Biotic and abiotic variables influencing plant litter breakdown in streams: a global study. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 283 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown JH, Gillooly JF, Allen AP, Savage VM, West GB (2004) Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85:1771–1789Google Scholar
  14. Bruenig EF (2016) Conservation and management of tropical rainforests, 2nd edn: an integrated approach to sustainability. CABI, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  15. Casotti CG, Kiffer WP, Costa LC, Rangel JV, Casagrande LC, Moretti MS (2015) Assessing the importance of riparian zones conservation for leaf decomposition in streams. Nat Conservacao 13:178–182Google Scholar
  16. Chapin FS III, Matson PA, Vitousek P (2011) Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Chellaiah D, Yule CM (2018a) Effect of riparian management on stream morphometry and water quality in oil palm plantations in Borneo. Limnologica 69:72–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chellaiah D, Yule CM (2018b) Riparian buffers mitigate impacts of oil palm plantations on aquatic macroinvertebrate community structure in tropical streams of Borneo. Ecol Indic 95:53–62. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen H, Dong S, Liu L, Ma C, Zhang T, Zhu X, Mo J (2014) Effects of experimental nitrogen and phosphorus addition on litter decomposition in an old-growth tropical forest. PLoS One 8:e84101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cheshire K, Boyero L, Pearson RG (2005) Food webs in tropical Australian streams: shredders are not scarce. Freshw Biol 50:748–769Google Scholar
  21. Cizungu L, Staelens J, Huygens D, Walangululu J, Muhindo D, Van Cleemput O, Boeckx P (2014) Litterfall and leaf litter decomposition in a central African tropical mountain forest and Eucalyptus plantation. For Ecol Manag 326:109–116Google Scholar
  22. Crossley D, Hoglund MP (1962) A litter-bag method for the study of microarthropods inhabiting leaf litter. Ecology 43:571–573Google Scholar
  23. Cunha EJ, de Assis Montag LF, Juen L (2015) Oil palm crops effects on environmental integrity of Amazonian streams and Heteropteran (Hemiptera) species diversity. Ecol Indic 52:422–429. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dang CK, Schindler M, Chauvet E, Gessner MO (2009) Temperature oscillation coupled with fungal community shifts can modulate warming effects on litter decomposition. Ecology 90:122–131PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Davidson EA, Janssens IA (2006) Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change. Nature 440:165–173Google Scholar
  26. Davidson EA, Janssens IA, Luo Y (2006) On the variability of respiration in terrestrial ecosystems: moving beyond Q10. Glob Change Biol 12:154–164Google Scholar
  27. DeAngelis KM, Chivian D, Fortney JL, Arkin AP, Simmons B, Hazen TC, Silver WL (2013) Changes in microbial dynamics during long-term decomposition in tropical forests. Soil Biol Biochem 66:60–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dobson M, Magana A, Mathooko JM, Ndegwa FK (2002) Detritivores in Kenyan highland streams: more evidence for the paucity of shredders in the tropics? Freshw Biol 47:909–919Google Scholar
  29. Encalada AC, Calles J, Ferreira V, Canhoto CM, Graca MA (2010) Riparian land use and the relationship between the benthos and litter decomposition in tropical montane streams. Freshw Biol 55:1719–1733Google Scholar
  30. Ewers RM et al (2011) A large-scale forest fragmentation experiment: the Stability of Altered Forest Ecosystems Project. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 366:3292–3302PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Fairhurst T, Mutert E (1999) Interpretation and management of oil palm leaf analysis data. Better Crops Int 13:48–51Google Scholar
  32. Fernandes I, Duarte S, Cássio F, Pascoal C (2013) Effects of riparian plant diversity loss on aquatic microbial decomposers become more pronounced with increasing time. Microb Ecol 66:763–772PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Ferreira V, Chauvet E (2011a) Future increase in temperature more than decrease in litter quality can affect microbial litter decomposition in streams. Oecologia 167:279–291PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Ferreira V, Chauvet E (2011b) Synergistic effects of water temperature and dissolved nutrients on litter decomposition and associated fungi. Glob Change Biol 17:551–564Google Scholar
  35. Ferreira V, Elosegi A, Gulis V, Pozo J, Graça MA (2006a) Eucalyptus plantations affect fungal communities associated with leaf-litter decomposition in Iberian streams. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 166:467–490Google Scholar
  36. Ferreira V, Gulis V, Graça MA (2006b) Whole-stream nitrate addition affects litter decomposition and associated fungi but not invertebrates. Oecologia 149:718–729PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Ferreira V, Gonçalves AL, Canhoto C (2012) Aquatic hyphomycete strains from metal-contaminated and reference streams might respond differently to future increase in temperature. Mycologia 104:613–622PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Fisher SG, Likens GE (1973) Energy flow in Bear Brook, New Hampshire: an integrative approach to stream ecosystem metabolism. Ecol Monogr 43:421–439Google Scholar
  39. Fonte SJ, Schowalter TD (2004) Decomposition of greenfall vs. senescent foliage in a tropical forest ecosystem in Puerto Rico. Biotropica 36:474–482Google Scholar
  40. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations F (2014) FAOSTAT. Accessed 19 Nov 2017
  41. Foster WA et al (2011) Establishing the evidence base for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem function in the oil palm landscapes of South East Asia. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 366:3277–3291PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Geraldes P, Pascoal C, Cássio F (2012) Effects of increased temperature and aquatic fungal diversity on litter decomposition. Fungal Ecol 5:734–740Google Scholar
  43. Gillespie GR, Ahmad E, Elahan B, Evans A, Ancrenaz M, Goossens B, Scroggie MP (2012) Conservation of amphibians in Borneo: relative value of secondary tropical forest and non-forest habitats. Biol Conserv 152:136–144Google Scholar
  44. Goma-Tchimbakala J, Bernhard-Reversat F (2006) Comparison of litter dynamics in three plantations of an indigenous timber-tree species (Terminalia superba) and a natural tropical forest in Mayombe, Congo. Forest Ecol Manag 229:304–313Google Scholar
  45. Gonçalves JF, de Souza Rezende R, Gregório RS, Valentin GC (2014) Relationship between dynamics of litterfall and riparian plant species in a tropical stream. Limnologica 44:40–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Graça MA, Canhoto C (2006) Leaf litter processing in low order streams. Limnetica 25:001–010Google Scholar
  47. Graça MA, Bärlocher F, Gessner MO (2005) Methods to study litter decomposition: a practical guide. Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  48. Grattan RM, Suberkropp K (2001) Effects of nutrient enrichment on yellow poplar leaf decomposition and fungal activity in streams. J N Am Benthol Soc 20:33–43Google Scholar
  49. Guendehou GS, Liski J, Tuomi M, Moudachirou M, Sinsin B, Makipaa R (2014) Decomposition and changes in chemical composition of leaf litter of five dominant tree species in a West African tropical forest. Trop Ecol 55:207–220Google Scholar
  50. Guevara G, Godoy R, Boeckx P, Jara C, Oyarzún C (2015) Effects of riparian forest management on Chilean mountain in-stream characteristics. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 15:160–170Google Scholar
  51. Gulis V, Suberkropp K (2003a) Interactions between stream fungi and bacteria associated with decomposing leaf litter at different levels of nutrient availability. Aquat Microb Ecol 30:149–157Google Scholar
  52. Gulis V, Suberkropp K (2003b) Leaf litter decomposition and microbial activity in nutrient-enriched and unaltered reaches of a headwater stream. Freshw Biol 48:123–134Google Scholar
  53. Gulis V, Suberkropp K (2004) Effects of whole-stream nutrient enrichment on the concentration and abundance of aquatic hyphomycete conidia in transport. Mycologia 96:57–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Gulis V, Ferreira V, Graça M (2006) Stimulation of leaf litter decomposition and associated fungi and invertebrates by moderate eutrophication: implications for stream assessment. Freshw Biol 51:1655–1669Google Scholar
  55. Hättenschwiler S, Aeschlimann B, Coûteaux MM, Roy J, Bonal D (2008) High variation in foliage and leaf litter chemistry among 45 tree species of a neotropical rainforest community. New Phytol 179:165–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Hobbie SE, Vitousek PM (2000) Nutrient limitation of decomposition in Hawaiian forests. Ecology 81:1867–1877Google Scholar
  57. Jacobsen D, Cressa C, Mathooko JM, Dudgeon D (2008) Macroinvertebrates: composition, life histories and production. In: Dudgeon D (ed) Tropical stream ecology. Academic Press, Oxford, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  58. Jinggut T, Yule CM (2015) Leaf-litter breakdown in streams of East Malaysia (Borneo) along an altitudinal gradient: initial nitrogen content of litter limits shredder feeding. Freshw Sci 34:691–701Google Scholar
  59. Jinggut T, Yule CM, Boyero L (2012) Stream ecosystem integrity is impaired by logging and shifting agriculture in a global megadiversity center (Sarawak, Borneo). Sci Total Environ 437:83–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Jones JB Jr (2001) Laboratory guide for conducting soil tests and plant analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, United States of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  61. Kaspari M, Garcia MN, Harms KE, Santana M, Wright SJ, Yavitt JB (2008) Multiple nutrients limit litterfall and decomposition in a tropical forest. Ecol Lett 11:35–43Google Scholar
  62. Kavvadias VA, Alifragis D, Tsiontsis A, Brofas G, Stamatelos G (2001) Litterfall, litter accumulation and litter decomposition rates in four forest ecosystems in northern Greece. For Ecol Manag 144:113–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kögel-Knabner I (2002) The macromolecular organic composition of plant and microbial residues as inputs to soil organic matter. Soil Biol Biochem 34:139–162Google Scholar
  64. Kominoski JS, Marczak LB, Richardson JS (2011) Riparian forest composition affects stream litter decomposition despite similar microbial and invertebrate communities. Ecology 92:151–159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Kordas R, Dumbrell A, Woodward G (2016) Large-scale ecology: model systems to global perspectives, vol 55. Academic Press, Cambridge, United States of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  66. Kreutzweiser DP, Good KP, Capell SS, Holmes SB (2008) Leaf-litter decomposition and macroinvertebrate communities in boreal forest streams linked to upland logging disturbance. J N Am Benthol Soc 27:1–15Google Scholar
  67. Lacan I, Resh VH, McBride J (2010) Similar breakdown rates and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages on native and Eucalyptus globulus leaf litter in Californian streams. Freshwater Biol 55:739–752Google Scholar
  68. Lecerf A, Marie G, Kominoski JS, LeRoy CJ, Bernadet C, Swan CM (2011) Incubation time, functional litter diversity, and habitat characteristics predict litter-mixing effects on decomposition. Ecology 92:160–169Google Scholar
  69. Lees AC, Moura NG, de Almeida AS, Vieira IC (2015) Poor prospects for avian biodiversity in Amazonian oil palm. PloS One 10:e0122432. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Leroy CJ, Marks JC (2006) Litter quality, stream characteristics and litter diversity influence decomposition rates and macroinvertebrates. Freshw Biol 51:605–617Google Scholar
  71. Li AO, Ng LC, Dudgeon D (2009) Effects of leaf toughness and nitrogen content on litter breakdown and macroinvertebrates in a tropical stream. Aquat Sci 71:80–93Google Scholar
  72. Loranger G, Ponge J-F, Imbert D, Lavelle P (2002) Leaf decomposition in two semi-evergreen tropical forests: influence of litter quality. Biol Fertil Soils 35:247–252Google Scholar
  73. Lowman MD, Schowalter TD, Franklin J (2012) Methods in forest canopy research. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, United States of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  74. Luiza-Andrade A et al (2017) Influence of oil palm monoculture on the taxonomic and functional composition of aquatic insect communities in eastern Brazilian Amazonia. Ecol Indic 82:478–483Google Scholar
  75. Makkonen M, Berg MP, Handa IT, Hättenschwiler S, Ruijven J, Bodegom PM, Aerts R (2012) Highly consistent effects of plant litter identity and functional traits on decomposition across a latitudinal gradient. Ecol Lett 15:1033–1041Google Scholar
  76. Malmqvist B, Rundle S (2002) Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world. Environ Conserv 29:134–153Google Scholar
  77. Martínez A, Larrañaga A, Pérez J, Descals E, Pozo J (2014) Temperature affects leaf litter decomposition in low-order forest streams: field and microcosm approaches. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 87:257–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Mathuriau C, Chauvet E (2002) Breakdown of leaf litter in a neotropical stream. J N Am Benthol Soc 21:384–396Google Scholar
  79. McKie BG, Malmqvist B (2009) Assessing ecosystem functioning in streams affected by forest management: increased leaf decomposition occurs without changes to the composition of benthic assemblages. Freshw Biol 54:2086–2100Google Scholar
  80. Mercer EV, Mercer TG, Sayok AK (2014) Effects of forest conversions to oil palm plantations on freshwater macroinvertebrates: a case study from Sarawak, Malaysia. J Land Use Sci 9:260–277Google Scholar
  81. Miettinen J, Shi C, Liew SC (2011) Deforestation rates in insular Southeast Asia between 2000 and 2010. Glob Change Biol 17:2261–2270Google Scholar
  82. Newman MM, Liles MR, Feminella JW (2015) Litter breakdown and microbial succession on two submerged leaf species in a small forested stream. PloS One 10:e0130801PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Niinemets Ü, Tamm Ü (2005) Species differences in timing of leaf fall and foliage chemistry modify nutrient resorption efficiency in deciduous temperate forest stands. Tree Physiol 25:1001–1014Google Scholar
  84. Ong CS, Juan JC, Yule CM (2015) Litterfall production and chemistry of Koompassia malaccensis and Shorea uliginosa in a tropical peat swamp forest: plant nutrient regulation and climate relationships. Trees 29:527–537Google Scholar
  85. Pandey RR, Sharma G, Tripathi SK, Singh AK (2007) Litterfall, litter decomposition and nutrient dynamics in a subtropical natural oak forest and managed plantation in northeastern India. For Ecol Manag 240:96–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Díaz S, Cornelissen JH, Vendramini F, Cabido M, Castellanos A (2000) Chemistry and toughness predict leaf litter decomposition rates over a wide spectrum of functional types and taxa in central Argentina. Plant Soil 218:21–30Google Scholar
  87. Piggott JJ, Niyogi DK, Townsend CR, Matthaei CD (2015) Multiple stressors and stream ecosystem functioning: climate warming and agricultural stressors interact to affect processing of organic matter. J Appl Ecol 52:1126–1134Google Scholar
  88. Power ME, Dietrich WE, Finlay JC (1996) Dams and downstream aquatic biodiversity: potential food web consequences of hydrologic and geomorphic change. Environ Manag 20:887–895Google Scholar
  89. Pozo J, Basaguren A, Elosegui A, Molinero J, Fabre E, Chauvet E (1998) Afforestation with Eucalyptus globulus and leaf litter decomposition in streams of northern Spain. Hydrobiologia 373:101–110Google Scholar
  90. Qualls RG, Richardson CJ (2000) Phosphorus enrichment affects litter decomposition, immobilization, and soil microbial phosphorus in wetland mesocosms. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:799–808Google Scholar
  91. Quinn JM, Burrell GP, Parkyn SM (2000) Influences of leaf toughness and nitrogen content on in-stream processing and nutrient uptake by litter in a Waikato, New Zealand, pasture stream and streamside channels. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 34:253–271Google Scholar
  92. Quinn JM, Boothroyd IK, Smith BJ (2004) Riparian buffers mitigate effects of pine plantation logging on New Zealand streams: 2. Invertebrate communities. For Ecol Manag 191:129–146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rejmánková E (2001) Effect of experimental phosphorus enrichment on oligotrophic tropical marshes in Belize, Central America. Plant Soil 236:33–53Google Scholar
  94. Reynolds G, Payne J, Sinun W, Mosigil G, Walsh RP (2011) Changes in forest land use and management in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo, 1990–2010, with a focus on the Danum Valley region. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 366:3168–3176Google Scholar
  95. Riipinen MP, Fleituch T, Hladyz S, Woodward G, Giller P, Dobson M (2010) Invertebrate community structure and ecosystem functioning in European conifer plantation streams. Freshw Biol 55:346–359Google Scholar
  96. Rincón J, Santelloco R (2009) Aquatic fungi associated with decomposing Ficus sp. leaf litter in a neotropical stream. J N Am Benthol Soc 28:416–425Google Scholar
  97. Rios SL, Bailey RC (2006) Relationship between riparian vegetation and stream benthic communities at three spatial scales. Hydrobiologia 553:153–160Google Scholar
  98. Rosemond AD, Pringle CM, Ramírez A, Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2002) Landscape variation in phosphorus concentration and effects on detritus-based tropical streams. Limnol Oceanogr 47:278–289Google Scholar
  99. Santiago LS (2007) Extending the leaf economics spectrum to decomposition: evidence from a tropical forest. Ecology 88:1126–1131PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Schneider T et al (2012) Who is who in litter decomposition? Metaproteomics reveals major microbial players and their biogeochemical functions. ISME J 6:1749PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  101. Sheldon FH, Styring A, Hosner PA (2010) Bird species richness in a Bornean exotic tree plantation: a long-term perspective. Biol Conserv 143:399–407Google Scholar
  102. Silva-Junior EF, Moulton TP, Boëchat IG, Gücker B (2014) Leaf decomposition and ecosystem metabolism as functional indicators of land use impacts on tropical streams. Ecol Indic 36:195–204Google Scholar
  103. Singh M, Malhi Y, Bhagwat S (2015) Aboveground biomass and tree diversity of riparian zones in an oil palm-dominated mixed landscape in Borneo. J Trop For Sci:227–239Google Scholar
  104. Sridhar KR, Bärlocher F (2000) Initial colonization, nutrient supply, and fungal activity on leaves decaying in streams. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:1114–1119PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  105. Stelzer RS, Heffernan J, Likens GE (2003) The influence of dissolved nutrients and particulate organic matter quality on microbial respiration and biomass in a forest stream. Freshw Biol 48:1925–1937Google Scholar
  106. Tank JL, Webster J (1998) Interaction of substrate and nutrient availability on wood biofilm processes in streams. Ecology 79:2168–2179Google Scholar
  107. Tateno R et al (2007) Comparison of litterfall production and leaf litter decomposition between an exotic black locust plantation and an indigenous oak forest near Yan’an on the Loess Plateau, China. For Ecol Manag 241:84–90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Turner EC, Foster WA (2009) The impact of forest conversion to oil palm on arthropod abundance and biomass in Sabah, Malaysia. J Trop Ecol 25:23–30Google Scholar
  109. Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE (1980) The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:130–137Google Scholar
  110. Vijay V, Pimm SL, Jenkins CN, Smith SJ (2016) The impacts of oil palm on recent deforestation and biodiversity loss. PloS One 11:e0159668. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  111. Wang WY, Foster WA (2015) The effects of forest conversion to oil palm on ground-foraging ant communities depend on beta diversity and sampling grain. Ecol Evol 5:3159–3170PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  112. Weigel BM, Lyons J, Paine LK, Dodson SI, Undersander DJ (2000) Using stream macroinvertebrates to compare riparian land use practices on cattle farms in southwestern Wisconsin. J Freshw Ecol 15:93–106Google Scholar
  113. Wong M-K, Tsukamoto J, Yusuyin Y, Tanaka S, Iwasaki K, Tan N-P (2016) Comparison of soil macro-invertebrate communities in Malaysian oil palm plantations with secondary forest from the viewpoint of litter decomposition. For Ecol Manag 381:63–73Google Scholar
  114. Woodward G et al (2012) Continental-scale effects of nutrient pollution on stream ecosystem functioning. Science 336:1438–1440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Yang Y, Lin P, Guo J, Lin R, Chen G, He Z, Xie J (2003) Litter production, nutrient return and leaf-litter decomposition in natural and monoculture plantation forests of Castanopsis kawakamii in subtropical China. Acta Ecol Sin 23:1278–1289Google Scholar
  116. Yang X, Thornton P, Ricciuto D, Post W (2014) The role of phosphorus dynamics in tropical forests. Biogeosciences 11:1667Google Scholar
  117. Yule CM, Gomez LN (2009) Leaf litter decomposition in a tropical peat swamp forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Wetl Ecol Manag 17:231–241Google Scholar
  118. Yule CM et al (2009) Shredders in Malaysia: abundance and richness are higher in cool upland tropical streams. J N Am Benthol Soc 28:404–415Google Scholar
  119. Yule CM, Gan JY, Jinggut T, Lee KV (2015) Urbanization affects food webs and leaf-litter decomposition in a tropical stream in Malaysia. Freshw Sci 34:702–715 doi. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monash University MalaysiaPetaling JayaMalaysia

Personalised recommendations