Oecologia

, Volume 140, Issue 1, pp 113–124 | Cite as

Litter decomposition in moist acidic and non-acidic tundra with different glacial histories

Ecosystem Ecology
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Plant species composition is a potentially important source of variation in soil processes, including decomposition rates. We compared litter decomposition in two common and compositionally distinct tundra vegetation types in the northern foothills of the Brooks Range, Alaska: moist acidic tundra (soil pH 3–4), which occurs primarily on older landscapes, and moist non-acidic tundra (soil pH 6–7), which occurs primarily on landscapes with a more recent history of glaciation and has higher graminoid and forb abundance and lower woody shrub abundance than acidic tundra. To separate the influence of plant community composition from that of the soil environment, we decomposed the same nine substrates at a moist acidic and a moist non-acidic site located less than 2 km apart. Substrates included leaf litter of the dominant species in each growth form (graminoid, deciduous shrub, evergreen shrub, forb, moss) as well as woody stems of the deciduous shrub Betula nana. Then, we estimated above-ground community-level decomposition by weighting the decay rate of each species in the community by its proportional contribution to overall above-ground net primary production (ANPP). In contrast to our expectations, community-level decomposition rates estimated using the site-average decay rate for each substrate were similar between the two sites, likely because growth forms differed little in their leaf litter decay. By contrast, when site-specific decay rates were used to estimate community-level decomposition, it was nearly twice as fast at the older, moist acidic tundra site because most substrates decayed faster at that site, indicating a more favorable environment for decomposition in acidic tundra. Site differences in soil moisture and temperature could not explain site differences in decomposition. However, higher soil N availability at the moist acidic tundra may have contributed to faster decomposition since, in a separate experiment, fertilization with N stimulated decomposition of a common substrate at both sites. In addition, lower pH in acidic tundra may promote greater abundance of soil fungi, perhaps explaining faster decomposition rates at that site. In summary, the large differences in plant species composition between moist acidic and non-acidic tundra are likely to not contribute to site differences in decomposition. Nevertheless, decomposition is much more rapid in moist acidic tundra. Thus, landscape age and associated differences in soil pH and nutrient availability are important sources of variation in decomposition rate in upland Alaskan tundra.

Keywords

Arctic Alaska Fertilization Landscape age pH 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Tiffany Miley, Angela Moline, Chinelo Njaka, and Marissa Weiss for assistance in the field or laboratory and Merritt Turetsky and two anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript. We also thank Stan Harpole and Janneke HilleRisLambers for useful discussion. We are grateful to the Toolik Lake Field Research Station and the Arctic LTER for logistic support. This research was supported by a collaborative grant from the National Science Foundation (OPP-9902695 to S. E. Hobbie and OPP-9902721 to L. Gough). Fertilizer manipulations were initiated and maintained with support from the National Science Foundation to the Arctic LTER (DEB-9810222).

References

  1. Baath E, Arnebrandt K (1994) Growth rate and response of bacterial communities to pH in limed and ash treated forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem 26:995–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bevington PR (1969) Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bockheim JG, Walker DA, Everett LR, Shiklomanov NI (1998) Soils and cryoturbation in moist nonacidic and acidic tundra in the Kuparuk River Basin, Arctic Alaska, USA. Arct Alpine Res 30:166–174Google Scholar
  4. Bret-Harte MS, Shaver GR, Chapin FS III (2002) Primary and secondary stem growth in arctic shrubs: implications for community response to environmental change. J Ecol 90:251–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan KY, Heenan DP (1999) Lime-induced loss of soil organic carbon and effect on aggregate stability. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63:1841–1844Google Scholar
  6. Coulson JC, Butterfield J (1978) An investigation of the biotic factors determining the rates of plant decomposition on a blanket bog. J Ecol 66:631–650Google Scholar
  7. Dowding P, Widden P (1974) Some relationships between fungi and their environment in tundra regions. In: Holding AJ, Heal OW, MacLean SF Jr, Flanagan PW (eds) Soil organisms and decomposition in tundra. Tundra Biome Steering Committee, Stockholm, pp 123–150Google Scholar
  8. Evans RD, Rimer R, Sperr (2001) Exotic plant invasion alters nitrogen dynamics in an arid grassland. Ecol Appl 11:1301–1310Google Scholar
  9. Finzi AC, Canham CD, Van Breemen N (1998a) Canopy tree-soil interactions within temperate forests: species effects on pH and cations. Ecol Appl 8:447–454Google Scholar
  10. Finzi AC, Van Breemen N, Canham CD (1998b) Canopy tree-soil interactions within temperate forests: species effects on soil carbon and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8:440–446Google Scholar
  11. Gough L, Hobbie SE (2003) Responses of moist non-acidic arctic tundra to altered environment: productivity, biomass and species richness. Oikos 103:204–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gough L, Shaver GR, Carroll J, Royer DL, Laundre JA (2000) Vascular plant species richness in Alaskan arctic tundra: the importance of soil pH. J Ecol 88:54–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton TD (2002) Glacial geology of the Toolik Lake and Upper Kuparuk River region. In: Walker DA (ed) University of Alaska Fairbanks, Institute of Arctic Biology, FairbanksGoogle Scholar
  14. Heal OW, French DD (1974) Decomposition of organic matter in tundra. In: Holding AJ, Heal OW, Maclean SF, Flanagan PW (eds) Soil organisms and decomposition in tundra. Tundra Biome Steering Committee, Stockholm, pp 279–310Google Scholar
  15. Hobbie SE (1996) Temperature and plant species control over litter decomposition in Alaskan tundra. Ecol Monogr 66:503–522Google Scholar
  16. Hobbie SE, Chapin FS III (1996) Winter regulation of tundra litter carbon and nitrogen dynamics. Biogeochemistry 35:327–338Google Scholar
  17. Hobbie SE, Chapin FS III (1998) The response of tundra plant biomass, aboveground production, nitrogen, and CO2 flux to temperature manipulation. Ecology 79:1526–1544Google Scholar
  18. Hobbie SE, Gough L (2002) Foliar and soil nutrients in tundra on glacial landscapes of contrasting ages in northern Alaska. Oecologia 131:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hobbie SE, Miley TA, Weiss MS (2002) Carbon and nitrogen cycling in soils from different glacial surfaces in northern Alaska. Ecosystems 5:761–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hooper DU, Vitousek PM (1998) Effects of plant composition and diversity on nutrient cycling. Ecol Monogr 68:121–149Google Scholar
  21. Lovett GM, Rueth H (1999) Soil nitrogen transformations in beech and maple stands along a nitrogen deposition gradient. Ecol Appl 9:1330–1344Google Scholar
  22. Lovett GM, Weathers KC, Arthur MA (2002) Controls of nitrogen loss from forested watersheds by soil carbon:nitrogen ratio and tree species composition. Ecosystems 5:712–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lovett GM, Weathers KC, Arthur MA, Schultz JC (2004) Nitrogen cycling in a northern hardwood forest: do species matter? Biogeochemistry 67:289–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mack MC, D’Antonio DM, Ley RE (2001) Alteration of ecosystem nitrogen dynamics by exotic plants: a case study of C4 grasses in Hawaii. Ecol Appl 11:1323–1335Google Scholar
  25. Muneer M, Oades JM (1989a) The role of Ca-organic interactions in soil aggregate stability. I. Laboratory studies with 14 C-glucose, CaCO3 and CaSO42H2O. Aust J Soil Res 27:389–399Google Scholar
  26. Muneer M, Oades JM (1989b) The role of Ca-organic interactions in soil aggregate stability. II. Field studies with 14C-labelled straw, CaCO3 and CaSO42H2O. Aust J Soil Res 27:401–409Google Scholar
  27. Munter RC, Grande RA (1981) Plant tissue and soil extract analysis by ICP-AES. In: Barnes RM (ed) Developments in atomic plasma spectrochemical analysis. Heydon, Philadephia, pp 653–673Google Scholar
  28. Neale SP, Shah Z, Adams WA (1997) Changes in microbial biomass and nitrogen turnover in acidic organic soils following liming. Soil Biol Biochem 29:1463–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Painter TG (1991) Lindow Man, Tollund Man, and other peat-bog bodies: the preservative and antimicrobial action of sphagnan, a reactive glycuronoglycan with tanning and sequestering properties. Carbohydr Polymers 15:123–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robinson CH (2002) Controls on decomposition and soil nitrogen availability at high latitudes. Plant Soil 242:65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Robinson CH, Wookey PA, Parsons AN, Potter JA, Callaghan TV, Lee JA, Press MC, Welker JM (1995) The response of plant litter decomposition and nitrogen mineralisation to simulated environmental change in a high Arctic polar desert and subarctic dwarf shrub heath. Oikos 74:503–512Google Scholar
  32. Scott NA, Binkley D (1997) Foliage litter quality and annual net N mineralization: comparison across North American forest sites. Oecologia 111:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scott NA, Saggar S, McIntosh PD (2001) Biogeochemical impact of Hieracium invasion in New Zealand’s grazed tussock grasslands: sustainability implications. Ecol Appl 11:1311–1322Google Scholar
  34. Shaver GR, Chapin FS III (1991) Production:biomass relationships and element cycling in contrasting arctic vegetation types. Ecol Monogr 61:1–31Google Scholar
  35. Shaver GR et al (2001) Species composition interacts with fertilizer to control long-term change in tundra productivity. Ecology 82:3162–3181Google Scholar
  36. Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM (1979) Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Cleve K (1974) Organic matter quality in relation to decomposition. In: Holding AJ, Heal OW, Maclean SF, Flanagan PW (eds) Soil organisms and decomposition in tundra. Tundra Biome Steering Committee, Stockholm, pp 311–324Google Scholar
  38. Van Soest PJ (1994) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd edn. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
  39. Vinton MA, Burke IC (1995) Interactions between individual plant species and soil nutrient status in shortgrass steppe. Ecology 76:1116–1133Google Scholar
  40. Vinton MA, Burke IC (1997) Contingent effects of plant species on soils along a regional moisture gradient in the Great Plains. Oecologia 110:393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vitousek PM, Walker LR (1989) Biological invasion by Myrica faya in Hawai’i: plant demography, nitrogen fixation, ecosystem effects. Ecol Monogr 59:247–265Google Scholar
  42. Walker DA (1998) The Geobotanical Atlas of the Toolik Lake and Kuparuk River Region, Alaska. http://www.geobotany.uaf.edu/arcticgeobot/index.html
  43. Walker MD, Walker DA, Auerbach NA (1994) Plant communities of a tussock tundra landscape in the Brooks Range Foothills, Alaska. J Veg Sci 5:843–866Google Scholar
  44. Walker DA, Auerbach NA, Shippert MM (1995) NDVI, biomass, and landscape evolution of glaciated terrain in northern Alaska. Polar Rec 31:169–178Google Scholar
  45. Walker DA et al (1998) Energy and trace-gas fluxes across a soil pH boundary in the Arctic. Nature 394:469–472Google Scholar
  46. Wedin DA, Tilman D (1990) Species effects on nitrogen cycling: a test with perennial grasses. Oecologia 84:433–441Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and BehaviorUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations