, Volume 162, Issue 2, pp 505–513

Fine root decomposition rates do not mirror those of leaf litter among temperate tree species

  • Sarah E. Hobbie
  • Jacek Oleksyn
  • David M. Eissenstat
  • Peter B. Reich
Ecosystem ecology - Original Paper


Elucidating the function of and patterns among plant traits above ground has been a major research focus, while the patterns and functioning of belowground traits remain less well understood. Even less well known is whether species differences in leaf traits and their associated biogeochemical effects are mirrored by differences in root traits and their effects. We studied fine root decomposition and N dynamics in a common garden study of 11 temperate European and North American tree species (Abies alba, Acer platanoides, Acer pseudoplatanus, Carpinus betulus, Fagussylvatica, Larix decidua, Picea abies, Pseudotsugamenziesii, Quercus robur, Quercus rubra and Tilia cordata) to determine whether leaf litter and fine root decomposition rates are correlated across species as well as which species traits influence microbial decomposition above versus below ground. Decomposition and N immobilization rates of fine roots were unrelated to those of leaf litter across species. The lack of correspondence of above- and belowground processes arose partly because the tissue traits that influenced decomposition and detritus N dynamics different for roots versus leaves, and partly because influential traits were unrelated between roots and leaves across species. For example, while high hemicellulose concentrations and thinner roots were associated with more rapid decomposition below ground, low lignin and high Ca concentrations were associated with rapid aboveground leaf decomposition. Our study suggests that among these temperate trees, species effects on C and N dynamics in decomposing fine roots and leaf litter may not reinforce each other. Thus, species differences in rates of microbially mediated decomposition may not be as large as they would be if above- and belowground processes were working in similar directions (i.e., if faster decomposition above ground corresponded to faster decomposition below ground). Our results imply that studies that focus solely on aboveground traits may obscure some of the important mechanisms by which plant species influence ecosystem processes.


Ecosystem processes Nitrogen dynamics Plant traits Species effects Forest 


  1. Aerts R, Chapin FS III (2000) The mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: a re-evaluation of processes and patterns. Adv Ecol Res 30:1–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson LJ, Comas LH, Lakso AN, Eissenstat DM (2003) Multiple risk factors in root survivorship: a 4-year study in Concord grape. New Phytol 158:489–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapin FS III (1980) The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:233–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cornwell WK et al (2008) Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide. Ecol Lett 11:1065–1071CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Craine JM, Tilman D, Wedin D, Reich P, Tjoelker M, Knops J (2002) Functional traits, productivity and effects on nitrogen cycling of 33 grassland species. Funct Ecol 16:563–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Craine JM, Lee WG, Bond WJ, Williams RJ, Johnson LC (2005) Environmental constraints on a global relationship among leaf and root traits of grasses. Ecology 86:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Díaz S et al (2004) The plant traits that drive ecosystems: Evidence from three continents. J Veg Sci 15:295–304Google Scholar
  8. Eissenstat DM, Volder A (2004) The efficiency of nutrient acquisition over the life of a root. In: BarririRad H (ed) Nutrient acquisition by plants: an ecological perspective. Ecological studies 191. Springer, New York, pp 185–220Google Scholar
  9. Eissenstat DM, Wells CE, Yanai RD, Whitbeck JL (2000) Building roots in a changing environment: implications for root longevity. New Phytol 147:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gill RA, Jackson RB (2000) Global patterns of root turnover for terrestrial ecosystems. New Phytol 147:13–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grime JP (1977) Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat 111:1169–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guo D, Mitchell RJ, Withington JM, Fan P-P, Hendricks JJ (2008) Endogenous and exogenous controls of root life span, mortality and nitrogen flux in a longleaf pine forest: root branch order predominates. J Ecol 96:737–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Güsewell S (2004) N:P ratios in terrestrial plants: variation and functional significance. New Phytol 164:243–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hobbie SE (1992) Effects of plant species on nutrient cycling. Trends Ecol Evol 7:336–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hobbie SE (2008) Nitrogen effects on litter decomposition: a five-year experiment in eight temperate grassland and forest sites. Ecology 89:2633–2644CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hobbie SE, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Ogdahl M, Zytkowiak R, Hale CM, Karolewski P (2006) Tree species effects on decomposition and forest floor dynamics in a common garden. Ecology 87:2288–2297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hobbie SE, Ogdahl M, Chorover J, Chadwick OA, Oleksyn J, Zytkowiak R, Reich PB (2007) Tree species effects on soil organic matter dynamics: the role of soil cation composition. Ecosystems 10:999–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Manzoni S, Jackson RB, Trofymow JA, Porporato A (2008) The global stoichiometry of litter nitrogen mineralization. Science 321:684–686CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. McGroddy ME, Daufresne T, Hedin LO (2004) Scaling of C:N:P stoichiometry in forests worldwide: implications of terrestrial Redfield-type ratios. Ecology 85:2390–2401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Norby RJ, Ledford J, Reilly CD, Miller NE, O’Neill EG (2004) Fine-root production dominates the response of a deciduous forest to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101:9689–9693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ostertag R, Hobbie SE (1999) Early stages of root and leaf decomposition in Hawaiian forests: effects of nutrient availability. Oecologia 121:564–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parton WA, Silver WL, Burke IC, Grassens L, Harmon ME, Currie WS, King JY, Adair EC, Brandt LA, Hart SC, Fasth B (2007) Global-scale similarities in nitrogen release patterns during long-term decomposition. Science 315:361–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pregitzer KS, DeForest JL, Burton AJ, Allen MF, Ruess RW, Hendrick RL (2002) Fine root architecture of nine North American trees. Ecol Monogr 72:293–309Google Scholar
  25. Reich PB, Oleksyn J (2004) Global patterns of plant leaf N and P in relation to temperature and latitude. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:11001–11006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS (1992) Leaf life-span in relation to leaf, plant, and stand characteristics among diverse ecosystems. Ecol Monogr 62:365-392Google Scholar
  27. Reich PB, Walters MB, Tjoelker MG, Vanderklein D, Buschena C (1998) Photosynthesis and respiration rates depend on leaf and root morphology and nitrogen concentration in nine boreal tree species differing in relative growth rate. Funct Ecol 12:395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reich PB, Buschena C, Tjoelker MG, Wrage K, Knops J, Tilman D, Machado JL (2003a) Variation in growth rate and ecophysiology among 34 grassland and savanna species under contrasting N supply: a test of functional group differences. New Phytol 157:617–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reich PB, Wright I, Cavender-Bares J, Craine J, Oleksyn J, Westoby M, Walters MB (2003b) The evolution of plant functional variation: traits, spectra, and strategies. Int J Plant Sci 164:s143–s164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Modrzynski J, Mrozinski P, Hobbie SE, Eissenstat DM, Chorover J, Chadwick OA, Hale CM, Tjoelker MG (2005) Linking litter calcium, earthworms and soil properties: a common garden test with 14 tree species. Ecol Lett 8:811–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Resendes ML, Bryla DR, Eissenstat DM (2008) Early events in the life of apple roots: variation in root growth rate is linked to mycorrhizal and nonmycorrhizal fungal colonization. Plant Soil 313:175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruess RW, Hendrick RL, Burton AJ, Pregitzer KS, Sveinbjornsson B, Allen ME, Maurer GE (2003) Coupling fine root dynamics with ecosystem carbon cycling in black spruce forests of interior Alaska. Ecol Monogr 73:643–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Silver WL, Miya RK (2001) Global patterns in root decomposition: comparisons of climate and litter quality effects. Oecologia 129:407–419Google Scholar
  34. Van Soest PJ (1994) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd edn. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  35. Vitousek P (1982) Nutrient cycling and nutrient use efficiency. Am Nat 119:553–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vivanco L, Austin AT (2006) Intrinsic effects of species on leaf litter and root decomposition: a comparison of temperate grasses from North and South America. Oecologia 150:97–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Wells CE, Eissenstat DM (2001) Marked differences in survivorship among apple roots of different diameters. Ecology 82:882–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Withington JM, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Eissenstat DM (2006) Comparisons of structure and life span in roots and leaves among temperate trees. Ecol Monogr 76:381–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wright IJ et al (2004) The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–827CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah E. Hobbie
    • 1
  • Jacek Oleksyn
    • 2
    • 3
  • David M. Eissenstat
    • 4
  • Peter B. Reich
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution and BehaviorUniversity of MinnesotaSt PaulUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaSt PaulUSA
  3. 3.Polish Academy of SciencesInstitute of DendrologyKornikPoland
  4. 4.Department of HorticultureThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations