Microbial Ecology

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 591–598

Fine Scale Patterns in Microbial Extracellular Enzyme Activity during Leaf Litter Decomposition in a Stream and its Floodplain

Microbiology of Aquatic Systems

Abstract

Microorganisms mediate the decomposition of leaf-litter through the release of extracellular enzymes. The surfaces of decomposing leaves are both chemically and physically heterogeneous, and spatial patterns in microbial enzyme activity on the litter surface should provide insights into fine-scale patterns of leaf-litter decomposition. Platanus occidentalis leaves were collected from the floodplain of a third-order stream in northern Mississippi, enclosed in individual litter bags, and placed in the stream channel and in the floodplain. Replicate leaves were collected approximately monthly over a 9-month period and assayed for spatial variation in microbial extracellular enzyme activity and rates of organic matter (OM) decomposition. Spatial variation in enzyme activity was measured by sampling 96 small discs (5-mm diameter) cut from each leaf. Discs were assayed for the activity of enzymes involved in lignin (oxidative enzymes) and cellulose (β-glucosidase, cellobiohydrolase) degradation. Rates of OM loss were greater in the stream than the floodplain. Activities of all enzymes displayed high variability in both environments, with severalfold differences across individual leaves, and replicate leaves varied greatly in their distribution of activities. Geostatistical analysis revealed no clear patterns in spatial distribution of activity over time or among replicates, and replicate leaves were highly variable. These results show that fine-scale spatial heterogeneity occurs on decomposing leaves, but the level of spatial variability varies among individual leaves at the measured spatial scales. This study is the first to use geostatistical analyses to analyze landscape patterns of microbial activity on decomposing leaf litter and in conjunction with studies of the microbial community composition and/or substrate characteristics, should provide key insights into the function of these processes.

References

  1. 1.
    Aro N, Pakula T, Penttilä M (2005) Transcriptional regulation of plant cell wall degradation by filamentous fungi. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29:719–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldy V, Gobert V, Guerold F, Chauvet E, Lambrigot D, Charcosset JY (2007) Leaf litter breakdown budgets in streams of various trophic status: effects of dissolved inorganic nutrients on microorganisms and invertebrates. Freshw Biol 52:1322–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergfur J, Johnson RK, Sandin L, Goedkoop W, Nygren K (2007) Effects of nutrient enrichment on boreal streams: invertebrates, fungi and leaf-litter breakdown. Freshw Biol 52:1618–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blum DL, Kataeva IA, Li XL, Ljungdahl LG (2000) Feruloyl esterase activity of the Clostridium thermocellum cellulosome can be attributed to previously unknown domains of XynY and XynZ. J Bacteriol 182:1346–1351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boulton AJ, Boon PI (1991) A review of methodology used to measure leaf litter decomposition in lotic environments: time to turn over an old leaf? Austr J Mar Freshw Res 42:1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewer JS (2001) Current and presettlement tree species composition of some upland forests in northern Mississippi. J Torrey Botanical Soc 128:332–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cardinale BJ, Palmer MA, Swan CM, Brooks S, Poff L (2002) The influence of substrate heterogeneity on biofilm metabolism in a stream ecosystem. Ecology 83:412–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chamier AC, Dixon PA, Archer SA (1984) The spatial distribution of fungi on decomposing alder leaves in a freshwater stream. Oecologia 64:92–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chróst RJ (1990) Microbial ectoenzymes in aquatic environments. In: Overbeck J, Chróst RJ (eds) Aquatic microbial ecology: biochemical and molecular approaches. pp, Springer-Verlag, pp 47–78Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dang CK, Gessner MO, Chauvet E (2007) Influence of conidial traits and leaf structure on attachment success of aquatic hyphomycetes on leaf litter. Mycologia 99:24–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Das M, Royer TV, Leff LG (2007) Diversity of fungi, bacteria, and Actinomycetes on leaves decomposing in a stream. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:756–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dulla G, Lindow SE (2008) Quorum size of Pseudomonas syringae is small and dictated by water availability on the leaf surface. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:3082–3087PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franklin RB, Blum LK, McComb AC, Mills AL (2002) A geostatistical analysis of small-scale spatial variability in bacterial abundance and community structure in salt marsh creek bank sediments. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 42:71–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Franklin RB, Mills AL (2003) Multi-scale variation in spatial heterogeneity for microbial community structure in an eastern Virginia agricultural field. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 44:335–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gartner TB, Cardon ZG (2004) Decomposition dynamics in mixed-species leaf litter. Oikos 104:230–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gessner MO, Chauvet E (1994) Importance of stream microfungi in controlling breakdown rates of leaf litter. Ecology 75:1807–1817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Graca MAS, Canhoto C (2006) Leaf litter processing in low order streams. Limnetica 25:1–10Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Han SO, Yukawa H, Inui M, Doi RH (2003) Regulation of expression of cellulosomal cellulase and hemicellulase genes in Clostridium cellulovorans. J Bacteriol 185:6067–6075PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Isaaks EH, Srivastava RM (1989) An introduction to applied geostatistics. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jackson CR, Foreman CM, Sinsabaugh RL (1995) Microbial enzyme activities as indicators of organic matter processing rates in a Lake Erie coastal wetland. Freshw Biol 34:329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jackson CR, Vallaire SC (2007) Microbial activity and decomposition of fine particulate organic matter in a Louisiana cypress swamp. J North Am Benth Soc 26:743–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jackson EF, Echlin HL, Jackson CR (2006) Changes in the phyllosphere community of the resurrection fern, Polypodium polypodioides, associated with rainfall and wetting. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 58:236–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jones PR, Cottrell MT, Kirchman DL, Dexter SC (2007) Bacterial community structure of biofilms on artificial surfaces in an estuary. Microb Ecol 53:153–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kearns SG, Bärlocher F (2008) Leaf surface roughness influences colonization success of aquatic hyphomycete conidia. Fungal Ecol 1:13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kobayashi S, Kagaya T (2004) Litter patch types determine macroinvertebrate assemblages in pools of a Japanese headwater stream. J North Am Benth Soc 23:78–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kobayashi S, Kagaya T (2005) Hot spots of leaf breakdown within a headwater stream reach: comparing breakdown rates among litter patch types with different macroinvertebrate assemblages. Freshw Biol 50:921–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Koetsier P, McArthur JV, Leff LG (1997) Spatial and temporal response of stream bacteria to sources of dissolved organic carbon in a blackwater stream system. Freshw Biol 37:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kominoski JS, Pringle CM, Ball BA, Radford MA, Coleman DC, Hall DB, Hunter MD (2007) Nonadditive effects of leaf litter species diversity on breakdown dynamics in a detritus-based stream. Ecology 88:1167–1176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kröpfla K, Vladára P, Szabób K, Ácsc E, Borsodib AK, Szikorad S, Carolie S, Záray G (2006) Chemical and biological characterisation of biofilms formed on different substrata in Tisza river (Hungary). Environ Pollution 144:626–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Larson JL, Zak DR, Sinsabaugh RL (2002) Extracellular enzyme activity beneath temperate trees growing under elevated carbon dioxide and ozone. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:1848–1856Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lecerf A, Risnoveanu G, Popescu C, Gessner MO, Chauvet E (2007) Decomposition of diverse litter mixtures in streams. Ecology 88:219–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lindow SE, Brandl MT (2003) Microbiology of the phyllosphere. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:1875–1883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lund V, Goksoyr J (1980) Effects of water fluctuations on microbial biomass and activity in soil. Microb Ecol 6:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mckie BG, Petrin Z, Malmqvist B (2006) Mitigation or disturbance? Effects of liming on macroinvertebrate assemblage structure and leaf-litter decomposition in the humic streams of northern Sweden. J Applied Ecology 43:780–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Minasny B, McBratney AB, Whelan BM (2005) VESPER version 1.62. Australian Centre for Precision Agriculture, McMillan Building A05, The University of Sydney, SW 2006. (http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/agric/acpa)
  36. 36.
    Minshall GW, Peterson RC, Cummins KW, Bott TL, Sedell JR, Cushing CE, Vannote RL (1983) Interbiome comparison of stream ecosystem dynamics. Ecol Monogr 53:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moretti M, Goncalves JF, Callisto M (2007) Leaf breakdown in two tropical streams: differences between single and mixed species packs. Limnologica 37:250–258Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Morris SJ (1999) Spatial distribution of fungal and bacterial biomass in southern Ohio hardwood forest soils: fine scale variability and microscale patterns. Soil Biol Biochem 31:1375–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Neatrour MA, Webster JR, Benfield EF (2004) The role of floods in particulate organic matter dynamics of a southern Appalachian river–floodplain ecosystem. J North Am Benth Soc 23:198–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Osono T (2005) Colonization and succession of fungi during decomposition of Swida controversa leaf litter. Mycologia 97:589–597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Paerl HW, Pinckney JL (1996) A mini-review of microbial consortia: their roles in aquatic production and biogeochemical cycling. Microb Ecol 31:225–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Paul RW, Benfield EF, Cairns J (1983) Dynamics of leaf processing in a medium-sized river. In: Fontaine TD, Bartell SM (eds) Dynamics of lotic systems. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI, pp 402–423Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Romaní AM, Fischer H, Mille-Lindblom C, Tranvik LJ (2006) Interactions of bacteria and fungi on decomposing litter: differential extracellular enzyme activities. Ecology 87:2559–2569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rueda-Delgado G, Wantzen KM, Tolosa MB (2006) Leaf-litter decomposition in an Amazonian floodplain stream: effects of seasonal hydrological changes. J North Am Benth Soc 25:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shearer CA, Lane LC (1983) Comparison of three techniques for the study of aquatic hyphomycete communities (Fungi). Mycologia 75:498–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sinsabaugh RL, Antibus RK, Linkins AE (1991) An enzymic approach to the analysis of microbial activity during plant litter decomposition. Agr Ecosys Environ 34:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sinsabaugh RL (1994) Enzymic analysis of microbial pattern and process. Biol Fertil Soils 17:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sinsabaugh RL, Carreiro MM, Repert DA (2002) Allocation of extracellular enzymatic activity in relation to litter composition, N deposition, and mass loss. Biogeochemistry 60:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Webster JR, Benfield EF (1986) Vascular plant breakdown in freshwater ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:567–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Webster JR, Meyer JL (1997) Organic matter budgets for streams: a synthesis. J North Am Benth Soc 16:141–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wetzel RG (1991) Extracellular enzymatic interactions: storage, redistribution, and interspecific communication. In: Chróst RJ (ed) Microbial enzymes in aquatic environments. pp, Springer-Verlag, pp 6–28Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyThe University of MississippiUniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of MicrobiologyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations