, Volume 150, Issue 1, pp 97–107

Intrinsic effects of species on leaf litter and root decomposition: a comparison of temperate grasses from North and South America

Ecosystem Ecology


Plant species affect natural ecosystems through interactions between environmental and genetic factors. The importance of plant species in controlling decomposition is now well-established through its influence on litter quality, which affects mass loss and nutrient release. At the same time, direct species effects are often confounded with indirect site effects due to the ecophysiological responses of plants to environmental variability. We evaluated the intrinsic effects of species on litter quality and decomposition, comparing 14 native perennial grass species from three different grassland ecosystems in North and South America. Plants were grown under controlled greenhouse conditions to eliminate any indirect effects of climate on litter quality, and senescent material of leaf litter and roots were collected. The initial litter nutrient quality and the carbon quality were assessed, and decomposition was determined over a period of one year by placing litterbags in a common grassland site. In spite of constant growth conditions, species’ litter showed broad and significant differences in N, P and lignin concentration, as well as C:N ratio, with the greatest differences occurring between C3 and C4 species and leaf litter and root material. In addition, decomposition was significantly different among species and between leaf litter and roots within species, with constants (k) ranging from 1.50 to 3.65 year−1 for leaf litter, and 0.51–1.82 year−1 for roots. These results highlight the fact that, independent of climate or edaphic changes due to human activity, changes in plant species or in allocation patterns among plant organs in grassland ecosystems could have a large effect on carbon turnover. At the same time, the way in which intrinsic species characteristics affect decomposition demonstrates a large degree of functional convergence among species from grasslands of North and South America.


Grasslands C3 and C4 grasses North America South America Carbon cycle 


  1. Aber JD, Melillo JM (1982) Nitrogen immobilization in decaying hardwood leaf litter as a function of initial nitrogen and lignin content. Can J Bot 60:2263–2269Google Scholar
  2. Adler PB, Milchunas DG, Lauenroth WK, Sala OE, Burke IC (2004) Functional traits of graminoids in semi-arid steppes: a test of grazing histories. J Appl Ecol 41:653–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aerts R (1997) Climate, leaf litter chemistry, and leaf litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: a triangular relationship. Oikos 79:439–449Google Scholar
  4. Aerts R, Chapin FS (2000) The mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: a re-evaluation of processes and patterns. Adv Ecol Res 30:1–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Austin AT, Vitousek PM (1998) Nutrient dynamics on a rainfall gradient in Hawaii. Oecologia 113:519–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Austin AT, Vitousek PM (2000) Precipitation, decomposition, and litter decomposability of Metrosideros polymorpha on Hawaii. J Ecol 88:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cabrera AL, Zardini EM (1978) Manual de la flora de los alrededores de Buenos Aires. Acme, Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapin FS, Bloom AJ, Field CB, Waring RH (1987) Plant responses to multiple environmental factors. Bioscience 37:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornelissen JHC (1996) An experimental comparison of leaf decomposition rates in a wide range of temperate plant species and types. J Ecol 84:573–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornelissen JHC, Thompson K (1997) Functional leaf attributes predict litter decomposition rate in herbaceous plants. New Phytol 135:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cornelissen JHC, Perez-Harguindeguy N, Díaz S, Grime JP, Marzano B, Cabido M, Vendramini F, Cerabolini B (1999) Leaf structure and defence control litter decomposition rate across species and life forms in regional floras on two continents. New Phytol 143:191–200Google Scholar
  12. Correa MN (1971–1984) Flora patagónica. Colección INTA, Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  13. Coûteaux M-M, Bottner P, Berg B (1995) Litter decomposition, climate and litter quality. Trends Ecol Evol 10:63–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dormaar JF, Willms WD (1993) Decomposition of blue grama and rough fescue roots in praire soils. J Range Manage 46:207–213Google Scholar
  15. Epstein H, Lauenroth W, Burke I, Coffin D (1996) Ecological responses of dominant grasses along two climatic gradients in the Great Plains of the United States. J Veg Sci 7:777–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Epstein HE, Laurenroth WK, Burke IC, Coffin DP (1998) Regional productivities of plant species in the Great Plains of the United States. Plant Ecol 134:173–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Florence E, Milner DF (1979) Routine determination of nitrogen by Kjeldahl digestion without use of catalyst. Analyst 104:378–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fynn RWS, Morris CD, Kirkman KP (2005) Plant strategies and trait trade-offs influence trends in competitive ability along gradients of soil fertility and disturbance. J Ecol 93:384–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gholz HL, Wedin DA, Smitherman SM, Harmon ME, Parton WJ (2000) Long-term dynamics of pine and hardwood litter in contrasting environments: toward a global model of decomposition. Glob Change Biol 6:751–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gough L, Osenberg CW, Gross KL, Collins SL (2000) Fertilization effects on species density and primary productivity in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 89:428–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harmon ME, Nadelhoffer KJ, Blair JM (1999) Analysis of detritus and organic horizons for mineral and organic constituents. In: Robertson GP, Coleman DC, Bledsoe CS, Sollins P (eds) Standard soil methods for long-term ecological research. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 143–165Google Scholar
  22. Hector A et al. (1999) Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grasslands. Science 286:1123–1127Google Scholar
  23. Hobbie SE (1992) Effects of plant species on nutrient cycling. Trends Ecol Evol 7:336–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hobbie SE (1996) Temperature and plant species control over litter decomposition in Alaskan tundra. Ecol Monogr 66:503–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoorens B, Aerts R, Stroetenga M (2003) Does initial litter chemistry explain litter mixtures effects on decomposition? Oecologia 442:578–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Madritch MD, Hunter MD (2002) Phenotypic diversity influences ecosystem functioning in an oak sandhills community. Ecology 83:2084–2090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marschner H, Kirkby E, Cakmak I (1996) Effect of mineral nutritional status on shoot-root partitioning of photoassimilates and cycling of mineral nutrients. J Exp Bot 47:1255–1263Google Scholar
  28. McGroddy ME, Daufrense T, Hedin LO (2004) Scaling of C:N:P stoichiometry in forests worldwide: implications of terrestrial Redfield-type ratios. Ecology 85:2390–2401Google Scholar
  29. Melillo JM, Aber JD, Steudler PA, Schimel JP (1982) Nitrogen and lignin control of hardwood leaf litter decomposition dynamics. Ecology 63:621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Milchunas DG, Lauenroth WK (1992) Carbon dynamics and estimates of primary production by harvest, 14C dilution, and 14C turnover. Ecology 73:593–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moretto AS, Distel RA (2003) Decompositon and nutrient dynamics in leaf litter and roots of Poa ligularis and Stipa gyneriodes. J Arid Environ 55:503–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moretto AS, Distel RA, Didoné NG (2001) Decomposition and nutrient dynamic of leaf litter and roots from palatable and unpalatable grasses in a semi-arid grassland. Appl Soil Ecol 18:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murphy KL, Burke IC, Vinton MA, Lauenroth WK, Aguiar MR, Wedin DA, Virginia RA, Lowe P (2002) Regional analysis of litter quality in the central grassland region of North America. J Veg Sci 13:395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ostertag R, Hobbie SE (1999) Early stages of root and leaf decomposition in Hawaiian forests: effects of nutrient availability. Oecologia 121:564–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paruelo J, Jobbágy E, Sala O, Lauenroth W, Burke I (1998) Functional and structural convergence of temperate grassland and shrubland ecosystems. Ecol Appl 8:194–206Google Scholar
  36. Pastor J, Stillwell MA, Tilman D (1987) Little bluestem litter dynamics in Minnesota old fields. Oecologia 72:327–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Díaz S, Cornelissen JHC, 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 218:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1170–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sala OE, Austin AT, Vivanco L (2001) Temperate grassland and shrubland ecosystems. In: Levin SA (ed) Encyclopedia of biodiversity, vol 5. Academic, San Diego, CA, pp 627–635Google Scholar
  40. Sala OE, Deregibus VA, Schlichter T, Alippe H (1981) Productivity dynamics of a native temperate grassland in Argentina. J Range Manage 34:48–51Google Scholar
  41. Seastedt TR, Parton WJ, Ojima DS (1992) Mass loss and nitrogen dynamics of decaying litter of grasslands: the apparent low nitrogen immobilization potential of root detritus. Can J Bot 70:384–391Google Scholar
  42. Semmartin M, Aguiar MR, Distel RA, Moretto AS, Ghersa CM (2004) Litter quality and nutrient cycling affected by grazing-induced species replacements along a precipitation gradient. Oikos 107:148–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stevens CJ, Dise NB, Mountford JO, Gowing DJ (2004) Impact of nitrogen deposition on the species richness of grasslands. Science 303:1876–1879PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM (1979) Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  45. Taylor BR, Parkinson D, Parsons WFJ (1989) Nitrogen and lignin content as predictors of litter decay rates: a microcosm test. Ecology 70:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tilman D, Downing JA (1994) Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367:363–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tilman D, Wedin D, Knops J (1996) Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379:718–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. USDA, NRCS (2005) The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. Data compiled from various sources by Mark W. Skinner. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA (see http://www.plants.usda.gov, last accessed 5th July 2006)
  49. Van Soest PJ (1963) Use of detergents in analysis of fibrous feeds II: a rapid method for the determination of fiber and lignin. Assoc Off Anal Chem 46:829–835Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Vitousek PM, Turner DR, Parton WJ, Sanford RL (1994) Litter decomposition on the Mauna Loa matrix: patterns, mechanisms, and models. Ecology 75:418–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Walter H (1985) Vegetation of the earth and ecological systems of the geo-biosphere, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Wardle DA, Lavelle P (1997) Linkages between soil biota, plant litter quality and decomposition. In: Cadish G, Giller KE (eds) Driven by nature: plant litter quality and decomposition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp 107–124Google Scholar
  54. Wedin DA, Tilman D (1990) Species effects on nitrogen cycling: a test with perennial grasses. Oecolgia 84:433–441Google Scholar
  55. Wieder RK, Lang GE (1982) A critique of the analytical methods used in examining decomposition data obtained from litter bags. Ecology 63:1636–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zimmer M (2002) Is decomposition of woodland leaf litter influenced by its species richness? Soil Biol Biochem 34:277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Agronomía, Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA)CONICET and Universidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations