, Volume 164, Issue 3, pp 785–795

Slowed decomposition is biotically mediated in an ectomycorrhizal, tropical rain forest

  • Krista L. McGuire
  • Donald R. Zak
  • Ivan P. Edwards
  • Christopher B. Blackwood
  • Rima Upchurch
Ecosystem ecology - Original Paper


Bacteria and fungi drive the cycling of plant litter in forests, but little is known about their role in tropical rain forest nutrient cycling, despite the high rates of litter decay observed in these ecosystems. However, litter decay rates are not uniform across tropical rain forests. For example, decomposition can differ dramatically over small spatial scales between low-diversity, monodominant rain forests, and species-rich, mixed forests. Because the climatic patterns and soil parent material are identical in co-occurring mixed and monodominant forests, differences in forest floor accumulation, litter production, and decomposition between these forests may be biotically mediated. To test this hypothesis, we conducted field and laboratory studies in a monodominant rain forest in which the ectomycorrhizal tree Dicymbe corymbosa forms >80% of the canopy, and a diverse, mixed forest dominated by arbuscular mycorrhizal trees. After 2 years, decomposition was significantly slower in the monodominant forest (P < 0.001), but litter production was significantly greater in the mixed forest (P < 0.001). In the laboratory, we found microbial community biomass was greater in the mixed forest (P = 0.02), and the composition of fungal communities was distinct between the two rain forest types (P = 0.001). Sequencing of fungal rDNA revealed a significantly lower richness of saprotrophic fungi in the monodominant forest (19 species) relative to the species-rich forest (84 species); moreover, only 4% percent of fungal sequences occurred in both forests. These results show that nutrient cycling patterns in tropical forests can vary dramatically over small spatial scales, and that changes in microbial community structure likely drive the observed differences in decomposition.


Monodominance Tropical rain forest Decomposition Fungi Guyana 

Supplementary material

442_2010_1686_MOESM1_ESM.doc (26 kb)
Supplementary material (DOC 26 kb)


  1. Aerts R (1997) Climate, leaf litter chemistry and leaf litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: a triangular relationship. Oikos 79:439–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altschul SF et al (1997) Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 25:3389–3402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson JM, Swift MJ (1983) Decomposition in tropical forests. In: Sutton SL, Whitmore TC, Chadwick AC (eds) Tropical rain forests: ecology and management. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 287–309Google Scholar
  4. Ayres E, Steltzer H, Berg S, Wall DH (2009a) Soil biota accelerate decomposition in high-elevation forests by specializing in the breakdown of litter produced by the plant species above them. J Ecol 97:901–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayres E et al (2009b) Home-field advantage accelerates leaf litter decomposition in forests. Soil Biol Biochem 41:606–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldrian P (2009) Ectomycorrhizal fungi and their enzymes in soils: is there enough evidence for their role as facultative soil saprotrophs? Oecologia 161:657–660CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Batjes NH (1996) Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. Eur J Soil Sci 47:151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berg B, McClaugherty C (2007) Chapter 3 decomposer organisms. In: Plant litter: decomposition, humus formation, carbon sequestration. Springer, Berlin, pp 35–52Google Scholar
  9. Bligh EG, Dyer WJ (1954) A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Can J Biochem Physiol 37:911–917Google Scholar
  10. Carney KM, Matson PA (2006) The influence of tropical plant diversity and composition on soil microbial communities. Microb Ecol 52:226–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Connell JH, Lowman MD (1989) Low-diversity tropical rain forests: some possible mechanisms for their existence. Am Nat 134:88–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Couteaux MM, Bottner P, Berg B (1995) Litter decomposition, climate and litter quality. Trends Ecol Evol 10:63–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cullings K, Ishkhanova G, Henson J (2008) Defoliation effects on enzyme activities of the ectomycorrhizal fungus Suillus granulatus in a Pinus contorta (lodgepole pine) stand in Yellowstone National Park. Oecologia 158:77–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Degagne RS, Henkel TW, Steinberg SJ, Fox L (2009) Identifying Dicymbe corymbosa monodominant forests in Guyana using satellite imagery. Biotropica 41:7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dixon RK, Brown S, Houghton RA, Solomon AM, Trexler MC, Wisniewski J (1994) Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science 263:185–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Felsenstein J (2005) PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package). In: 3.6 edn. Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  17. Gadgil RL, Gadgil GD (1971) Mycorrhiza and litter decomposition. Nature 233:133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gadgil RL, Gadgil PD (1975) Suppression of litter decomposition by mycorrhizal foots of Pinus radiata. N Z J For Sci 5:35–41Google Scholar
  19. Gardes M, Bruns TD (1993) ITS primers with enhanced specificity for basidiomycetes—application to the identification of mycorrhizae and rusts. Mol Ecol 2:113–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gartner TB, Cardon ZG (2004) Decomposition dynamics in mixed-species leaf litter. Oikos 104:230–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gause GF (1934) The struggle for existence. Williams & Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  22. Gentry AH (1992) Tropical forest biodiversity—distributional patterns and their conservational significance. Oikos 63:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Hart TB (1990) Monospecific dominance in tropical rain forests. Trends Ecol Evol 5:6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hattenschwiler S, Tiunov A, Scheu S (2005) Biodiversity and litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:191–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henkel TW (2003) Monodominance in the ectomycorrhizal Dicymbe corymbosa (Caesalpiniaceae) from Guyana. J Trop Ecol 19:417–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Janos DP (1985) Mycorrhizal fungi: agents or symptoms of tropical community composition. In: Molina R (ed) Proceedings of the 6th North American Conference on Mycorrhizae. Oregon State University, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  28. Jimenez JJ, Lal R (2006) Mechanisms of C sequestration in soils of Latin America. Crit Rev Plant Sci 25:337–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koide RT, Wu T (2003) Ectomycorrhizas and retarded decomposition in a Pinus resinosa plantation. New Phytol 158:401–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindahl B, Stenlid J, Olsson S, Finlay R (1999) Translocation of P-32 between interacting mycelia of a wood-decomposing fungus and ectomycorrhizal fungi in microcosm systems. New Phytol 144:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lozupone C, Knight R (2005) UniFrac—a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:8228-8235Google Scholar
  32. Lynch MDJ, Thorn RG (2006) Diversity of basidiomycetes in Michigan agricultural soils. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:7050–7056CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Mayor JR, Henkel TW (2006) Do ectomycorrhizas alter leaf-litter decomposition in monodominant tropical forests of Guyana? New Phytol 169:579–588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. McGuire KL (2008) Ectomycorrhizal associations function to maintain tropical monodominance. In: Siddiqui ZA, Akhtar MS, Futai K (eds) Mycorrhizae: sustainable agriculture and forestry. Springer, Netherlands, pp 287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGuire KL, Henkel TW, Granzow de la Cerda I, Villa G, Edmund F, Andrew C (2008) Dual mycorrhizal colonization of forest-dominating tropical trees and the mycorrhizal status of non-dominant tree and liana species. Mycorrhiza 18:217–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Olson JS (1963) Energy-storage and balance of producers and decomposers in ecological-systems. Ecology 44:322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peay KG, Kennedy PG, Davies SJ, Tan S, Bruns TD (2010) Potential link between plant and fungal distributions in a dipterocarp rainforest: community and phylogenetic structure of tropical ectomycorrhizal fungi across a plant and soil ecotone. New Phytol 185:529–542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Potvin C, Lechowicz MJ, Tardif S (1990) The statistical-analysis of ecophysiological response curves obtained from experiments involving repeated measures. Ecology 71:1389–1400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Proctor J (1983) Tropical forest litter fall. I. Problems of data comparison. In: Sutton SL, Whitmore TC, Chadwick AC (eds) Tropical rain forests: ecology and management. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 267–285Google Scholar
  40. Sayer EJ, Powers JS, Tanner EVJ (2007) Increased litterfall in tropical forests boosts the transfer of soil CO2 to the atmosphere. PLos ONE 2:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schloss PD, Handelsman J (2005) Introducing DOTUR, a computer program for defining operational taxonomic units and estimating species richness. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:1501–1506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Singer R, Araujo IdJdSAraujo (1979) Litter decomposition and ectomycorrhizas in Amazonian forests. Acta Amazon 9:25–41Google Scholar
  43. Strickland MS, Lauber C, Fierer N, Bradford MA (2009) Testing the functional significance of microbial community composition. Ecology 90:441–451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM (1979) Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Swofford DL (2003) PAUP*. Phylogentic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), 4 edn. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  46. Taylor DL, Bruns TD (1999) Community structure of ectomycorrhizal fungi in a Pinus muricata forest: minimal overlap between the mature forest and resistant propagule communities. Mol Ecol 8:1837–1850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Tedersoo L, Nara K (2010) General latitudinal gradient of biodiversity is reversed in ectomycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol 185:351–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Tedersoo L, Suva T, Larsson E, Koljalg U (2006) Diversity and community structure of ectomycorrhizal fungi in a wooded meadow. Mycol Res 110:734–748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Ter Braak CJF (1986) Canonical correspondence analysis—a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67:1167-1179Google Scholar
  50. Thacker JR, Henkel TW (2004) New species of Clavulina from Guyana. Mycologia 96:650–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ (1994) Clustal-W—improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res 22:4673-4680Google Scholar
  52. Torti SD, Coley PD, Kursar TA (2001) Causes and consequences of monodominance in tropical lowland forests. Am Nat 157:141–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Townsend AR, Vitousek PM, Holland EA (1992) Tropical soils could dominate the short-term carbon-cycle feedbacks to increased global temperatures. Climatic Change 22:293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vainio EJ, Hantula J (2000) Direct analysis of wood-inhabiting fungi using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of amplified ribosomal DNA. Mycol Res 104:927–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Valencia RH, Balslev H, Paz H, Mino CG (1994) High tree alpha-diversity in Amazonian Ecuador. Biodivers Conserv 3:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vitousek PM (1984) Litterfall, nutrient cycling, and nutrient limitation in tropical forests. Ecology 65:285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vitousek PM, Sanford RL (1986) Nutrient cycling in moist tropical forest. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:137–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. White DC, Stair JO, Ringelberg DB (1997) Quantitative comparisons of in situ microbial biodiversity by signature biomarker analysis. J Ind Microbiol 17:185–196Google Scholar
  59. Woolley LP, Henkel TW, Sillett SC (2008) Reiteration in the monodominant tropical tree Dicymbe corymbosa (Caesalpiniaceae) and its potential adaptive significance. Biotropica 40:32–43Google Scholar
  60. Zelles L (1999) Fatty acid patterns of phospholipids and lipopolysaccharides in the characterisation of microbial communities in soi: a review. Biol Fertil Soils 29:111–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhu WX, Ehrenfeld JG (1996) The effects of mycorrhizal roots on litter decomposition, soil biota, and nutrients in a spodosolic soil. Plant Soil 179:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krista L. McGuire
    • 1
    • 3
  • Donald R. Zak
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ivan P. Edwards
    • 2
  • Christopher B. Blackwood
    • 2
    • 4
  • Rima Upchurch
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesBarnard College, Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biological SciencesKent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations