Stage-specific response of litter decomposition to N and S amendments in a subtropical forest soil
- 722 Downloads
Nitrogen (N) and sulfur (S) deposition are important drivers of global climate change, but their effects on litter decomposition remain unclear in the subtropical regions. We investigated the influences of N, S, and their interactions on the decomposition of 13C-labeled Pinus massoniana leaf litter. An orthogonal experiment with three levels of N (0, 81, and 270 mg N kg−1 soil) and S (0, 121, and 405 mg S kg−1 soil) was conducted. We traced the incorporation of 13C-litter into carbon dioxide (CO2), dissolved organic C (DOC), and microbial phospholipids. Over the 420-day incubation, litter decomposition did not respond to low N and S additions but increased under high levels and combined amendments (NS). However, litter-derived CO2 emissions were enhanced during the first 56 days, with a positive interaction of N × S. N additions promoted fungal growth, while S stimulated growth of Gram-positive bacteria, fungi, and actinobacteria. Increased decomposition was related to higher litter-derived DOC and fungi/bacteria ratio. Inversely, N and/or S amendments inhibited decomposition (N > NS > S) from day 57 afterwards, possibly due to C limitation and decreased abundances of Gram-negative bacteria and actinobacteria. These results suggested that N deposition interacted with S to affect litter decomposition, and this effect depended on N and S deposition levels and litter decomposition stage.
KeywordsLitter decomposition Phospholipid fatty acids Stable carbon isotope tracing Nitrogen deposition Sulfur deposition Subtropical forest soil
We would like to thank Dr. Yong Ran (Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences) for assistance in PLFAs analyses. We also greatly appreciate Dr. Courtney A. Creamer (CSIRO Agriculture Flagship, Australia) and Dr. Frank Hagedorn (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest Snow and Landscape Research, Switzerland) for their helpful discussions on carbon isotope composition determination. We thank Editor-in-Chief Professor Paolo Nannipieri and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions that improve the manuscript greatly. This work was supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (2014CB954002), Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDB15020100) and the Natural Science Foundation of China (41271243).
- Dentener F, Drevet J, Lamarque JF, Bey I, Eickhout B, Fiore AM, Hauglustaine D, Horowitz LW, Krol M, Kulshrestha UC, Lawrence M, Galy-Lacaux C, Rast S, Shindell D, Stevenson D, Van Noije T, Atherton C, Bell N, Bergman D, Butler T, Cofala J, Collins B, Doherty R, Ellingsen K, Galloway J, Gauss M, Montanaro V, Müller JF, Pitari G, Rodriguez J, Sanderson M, Solmon F, Strahan S, Schultz M, Sudo K, Szopa S, Wild O (2006) Nitrogen and sulfur deposition on regional and global scales: a multimodel evaluation. Glob Biogeochem Cycle 20, GB4003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Our nation’s air: status and trends through 2010. EPA, Technical Report EPA-454/R-12-001, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
- European Environment Agency (2013) European Union emission inventory report 1990–2011 under the UNECE convention on long-range transboundary air pollution (LRTAP). EEA, Technical Report 10/2013, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
- Gilkes NR, Henrissat B, Kilburn DG, Miller RC, Warren RA (1991) Domains in microbial beta-1,4-glycanases: sequence conservation, function, and enzyme families. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 55:303–315Google Scholar
- Greaver TL, Sullivan TJ, Herrick JD, Barber MC, Baron JS, Cosby BJ, Deerhake ME, Dennis RL, Dubois J-JB, Goodale CL, Herlihy AT, Lawrence GB, Liu LL, Lynch JA, Novak KJ (2012) Ecological effects of nitrogen and sulfur air pollution in the US: what do we know? Front Ecol Environ 10:365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kopáček J, Cosby BJ, Evans CD, Hruška J, Moldan F, Oulehle F, Šantrůčková H, Tahovská K, Wright RF (2013) Nitrogen, organic carbon and sulphur cycling in terrestrial ecosystems: linking nitrogen saturation to carbon limitation of soil microbial processes. Biogeochemistry 115:33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lamarque JF, Kiehl JT, Brasseur GP, Butler T, Cameron-Smith P, Collins WD, Collins WJ, Granier C, Hauglustaine D, Hess PG, Holland EA, Horowitz L, Lawrence MG, McKenna D, Merilees P, Prather MJ, Rasch PJ, Rotman D, Shindell D, Thornton P (2005) Assessing future nitrogen deposition and carbon cycle feedback using a multimodel approach: analysis of nitrogen deposition. J Geophys Res Atmos 110, D19303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rubino M, Dungait JAJ, Evershed RP, Bertolini T, De Angelis P, D’Onofrio A, Lagomarsino A, Lubritto C, Merola A, Terrasi F, Cotrufo MF (2010) Carbon input belowground is the major C flux contributing to leaf litter mass loss: evidences from a 13C labelled-leaf litter experiment. Soil Biol Biochem 42:1009–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tavi NM, Martikainen PJ, Lokko K, Kontro M, Wild B, Richter A, Biasi C (2013) Linking microbial community structure and allocation of plant-derived carbon in an organic agricultural soil using 13CO2 pulse-chase labelling combined with 13C-PLFA profiling. Soil Biol Biochem 58:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Traoré OYA, Kiba DI, Arnold MC, Fliessbach A, Oberholzer HR, Nacro HB, Lompo F, Oberson A, Frossard E, Bünemann EK (2015) Fertilization practices alter microbial nutrient limitations after alleviation of carbon limitation in a Ferric Acrisol. Biol Fertil Soils 52:1–13Google Scholar
- Xu CK, Hu ZY, Cai ZC, Wang TJ, He YQ, Cao ZH (2004) Atmospheric sulfur deposition for a red soil broadleaf forest in southern China. Pedosphere 14:32–330Google Scholar