Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 185, Issue 2, pp 305–316 | Cite as

Relationships among leaf functional traits, litter traits, and mass loss during early phases of leaf litter decomposition in 12 woody plant species

  • Jenna M. ZukswertEmail author
  • Cindy E. Prescott
Ecosystem ecology – original research

Abstract

Litter ‘quality’ or decomposability has historically been estimated through measuring chemical attributes, such as concentrations of nitrogen or ‘lignin’. More recently, foliar functional traits, which may incorporate indications of the physical structures of tissues, have been found to correlate with litter mass loss rates. However, these traits may not be adequate to predict early rates of mass loss, in which two factors are crucial: the amount of material quickly lost through leaching, and the ease of access of decomposer organisms to the more labile tissues in the interior of the litter. We investigated relationships among physical and chemical traits in foliage and litter of 12 species native to British Columbia and then observed how these traits related to mass loss during the first 3 months (Phase I) and between 3 and 12 months (Phase II). Novel traits measured in this study include cuticle thickness, litter leaching loss, and litter water uptake. Foliar and litter traits both co-varied along spectra, but several chemical traits, such as nitrogen concentration, changed from foliage to litter, i.e., during senescence. Phase I mass loss was best predicted by leaching loss and traits relating to leaching, such as cuticle thickness and specific leaf area. Phase II mass loss was predicted by traits that may relate to decomposer access and activity, such as leaf dry matter content and foliar nitrogen. Physical traits predicted mass loss as well or better than chemical traits, suggesting that physical characteristics of litter are important in determining early rates of decomposition.

Keywords

Leaf economics spectrum Litter structure Cuticle Leaching Decomposability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Lacey Samuels, Patrick Martone, and Miki Fujita of UBC Botany, Garnet Martens and Kevin Hodgson of UBC Bioimaging Facility, Maja Krzic, Valerie LeMay, Alice Chang, and Jason Barker of UBC Forestry, and Veronik Campbell of UBC Farm, for their insights, technical support, and access to resources. David Dunn of the Pacific Forestry Centre and Clive Dawson of the B.C. Ministry for the Environment performed chemical analyses of litter samples. Thank you to T. Philpott, A. Larocque, A. Wu, K. Corrao, and J. Antonio for field assistance, K. Janot and S. Starko for instrument troubleshooting, and T. Philpott, R. Ribbons, J. Amerongen Maddison, and D. Mendenhall for assisting in data interpretation. Funding was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). JMZ gratefully acknowledges the following graduate fellowships: Cordula and Gunter Paetzold Memorial Fellowship, R. Howard Webster Fellowship, Faculty of Forestry Strategic Recruitment Fellowship, Mary and David Macaree Fellowship, George S. Allen Memorial Scholarship, VanDusen Graduate Scholarship, and Donald S. McPhee Fellowship. We would also like to thank the Editors and our anonymous reviewers.

Author contribution statement

JMZ and CEP together developed project idea, hypotheses, and methodology. JMZ collected the data and performed analyses, and coordinated chemical analyses of litter samples by other institutions. JMZ performed data analyses. JMZ and CEP interpreted the results. JMZ and CEP wrote the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

Funding was provided by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery grant to CEP.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

442_2017_3951_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (214 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 213 kb)
442_2017_3951_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (499 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 498 kb)
442_2017_3951_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (333 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 333 kb)
442_2017_3951_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (99 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 99 kb)
442_2017_3951_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (490 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (PDF 489 kb)

References

  1. Aranwela N, Sanson G, Read J (1999) Methods of assessing leaf-fracture properties. New Phytol 144(2):369–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker MA, Carreño-Rocabado G, Poorter L (2011) Leaf economics traits predict litter decomposition of tropical plants and differ among land use types. Funct Ecol 25:473–483. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01802.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bocock KL, Gilbert OJW (1957) The disappearance of leaf litter under different woodland conditions. Plant Soil 9(2):179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ (1984) Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth International Group, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  5. Choong MF, Lucas PW, Ong JSY, Pereira B, Tan HTW, Turner IM (1992) Leaf fracture toughness and sclerophylly: their correlations and ecological implications. New Phytol 121(4):597–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornelissen JHC, Quested HM, van Logtestijn RSP, Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Gwynn-Jones D, Díaz S, Callaghan TV, Press MC, Aerts R (2006) Foliar pH as a new plant trait: can it explain variation in foliar and carbon cycling processes among subarctic plant species and types? Oecologia 147(2):315–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC, Amatangelo K, Dorrepaal E, Eviner VT, Godoy O, Hobbie SE, Hoorens B, Kurokawa H, Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Quested HM, Santiago LS, Wardle DA, Wright IJ, Aerts R, Allison SD, van Bodegom P, Brovkin V, Chatain A, Callaghan TV, Díaz S, Garnier E, Gurvich DE, Kazakou E, Klein JA, Read J, Reich PB, Soudzilovskaia NA, Vaieretti MV, Westoby M (2008) Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide. Ecol Lett 11:1065–1071. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01219.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. De’ath G, Fabricius KE (2000) Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 81(11):3178–3192. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[3178:CARTAP]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  9. Evert RF, Eichhorn SE (2006) Esau’s plant anatomy: meristems, cells, and tissues of the plant body: their structure, function, and development, 3rd edn. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fowler SD, Greenspan P (1985) Application of nile red, a fluorescent hydrophobic probe, for the detection of neutral lipid deposits in tissue sections: comparison with Oil Red O. J Histochem Cytochem 33(8):833–836. doi: 10.1177/33.8.4020099 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Freschet GT, Cornelissen JHC, van Logtestijn RSP, Aerts R (2010) Evidence of the ‘plant economics spectrum’ in a subarctic flora. J Ecol 98:362–373. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01615.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freschet GT, Aerts R, Cornelissen JHC (2012) A plant economics spectrum of litter decomposability. Funct Ecol 26:56–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2011.01913.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallardo A, Merino J (1993) Leaf decomposition in two Mediterranean ecosystems of southwest Spain: influence of substrate quality. Ecology 74(1):152–161. doi: 10.2307/1939510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM (2013) A primer of ecological statistics, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrell FE (2015) Package ‘Hmisc’ [online]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Hmisc/Hmisc.pdf. Accessed Jan 2016
  16. Holloway PH (1982) Structure and histochemistry of plant cuticular membranes: an overview. In: Cutler DF, Alvin KL, Price CE (eds) The plant cuticle. Academic Press, London, pp 1–32Google Scholar
  17. Husson F, Josse J (2016) imputePCA {missMDA} [online]. http://www.inside-r.org/packages/cran/missMDA/docs/imputePCA. Accessed Feb 2016
  18. Jackrel SL, Wootton JT (2015) Cascading effects of induced terrestrial plant defences on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem function. Proc R Soc B 282:20142522. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.2522 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson BG, Peltzer DA, Wardle DA (2013) Are functional traits and litter decomposability coordinated across leaves, twigs, and wood? A test using temperate rainforest tree species. Oikos 122:1131–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kazakou E, Vile D, Shipley B, Gallet C, Garnier E (2006) Co-variations in litter decomposition, leaf traits, and plant growth in species from a Mediterranean old-field succession. Funct. Ecol. 20(1): 21–30. doi: 10.111l/j.1365-2435.2006.01080.xGoogle Scholar
  21. Koehler B, Tranvik LJ (2015) Reactivity continuum modeling of leaf root, and wood decomposition across biomes. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 120(7):1196–1214. doi: 10.1002/2015/JG002908 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lê S, Josse J, Husson F (2008) FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. J Stat Softw 25(1):1–18. doi: 10.18637/jss.v025.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Makkonen M, Berg MP, Handa IT, Hattenscwhiler S, van Ruijen J, van Bodegom PM, Aerts R (2012) Highly consistent effects of plant litter identity and functional traits on decomposition across a latitudinal gradient. Ecol Lett 15:1033–1041. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01826.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. McClaugherty CA, Pastor J, Aber JD, Melillo JM (1985) Forest litter decomposition in relation to soil nitrogen dynamics and litter quality. Ecology 66:266–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Onoda Y, Westoby M, Adler PB, Choong AMF, Clissold FJ, Cornelissen JHC, Díaz S, Dominy NJ, Elgart A, Enrico L, Fine PVA, Howard JJ, Jalili A, Kitajima K, Kurokawa H, McArthur C, Lucas PW, Markesteijn L, Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Poorter L, Richards L, Santiago LS, Sosinski EE Jr, Van Bael SA, Warton DI, Wright IJ, Wright SJ, Yamashita N (2011) Global patterns of leaf mechanical properties. Ecol Lett 14:301–312. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01582.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Onoda Y, Richards L, Westoby M (2012) The importance of leaf cuticle for carbon economy and mechanical strength. New Phytol 196:441–447. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04263.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Diaz S, Garnier E, Laborel S, Poorter H, Jaureguiberry P, Bret-Harte MS, Cornwell WK, Craine JM, Gurvich DE, Urcelay C, Veneklaas EJ, Reich PB, Poorter L, Wright IJ, Ray P, Enrico L, Pausas JG, de Vos AC, Buchmann N, Funes G, Quétier F, Hodgson JG, Thompson K, Morgan HD, ter Steege H, van der Heijden MGA, Sack L, Blonder B, Poschlod P, Vaieretti MV, Conti G, Staver AC, Auino S, Cornelissen JHC (2013) New handbook for standardized measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust J Bot 61(3):167–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pietsch KA, Ogle K, Cornelissen JHC, Cornwell WK, Bönisch G, Craine JM, Jackson BG, Kattge J, Peltzer DA, Penuelas J, Reich PB, Wardle DA, Weedon JT, Wright IJ, Zanne AE, Wirth C (2014) Global relationships of wood and leaf litter decomposability: the role of functional traits within and across organs. Global Ecol Biogeogr 23:1046–1057. doi: 10.1111/geb.12172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ponge J (1991) Succession of fungi and fauna during decomposition of needles in a small area of Scots pine litter. Plant Soil 138:99–113. doi: 10.1007/BF00011812 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prescott CE (2010) Litter decomposition: what controls it and how can we alter it to sequester more carbon in forest soils? Biogeochemistry 101:133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rahman MM, Tsukamoto J (2013) Leaf traits, litter decomposability and forest floor dynamics in an evergreen- and a deciduous-broadleaved forest in warm temperature Japan. Forestry 86:441–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ryan MG, Melillo JM, Ricca A (1990) A comparison of methods for determining proximate carbon fractions of forest litter. Can J Forest Res 20:166–171. doi: 10.1139/x90-023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Santiago LS (2007) Extending the leaf economics spectrum to decomposition: evidence from a tropical forest. Ecology 88(5):1126–1131. doi: 10.1890/06-1841 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Suffling R, Smith DW (1974) Litter decomposition studies using mesh bags: spillage inaccuracies and the effects of repeated artificial drying. Can J Bot 52:2157–2163. doi: 10.1139/b74-278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM (1979) Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Taiz L, Zeiger E (2010) Plant Physiology, 5th edn. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  37. Taylor BR, Parkinson D (1988) Annual differences in quality of leaf litter of aspen (Populus tremuloides) affecting rates of decomposition. Can J Bot 66:1940–1947. doi: 10.1139/b88-266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taylor BR, Prescott CE, Parsons WFJ, Parkinson D (1991) Substrate control of litter decomposition in four Rocky Mountain coniferous forests. Can J Bot 69:2242–2250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Therneau T, Atkinson B, Ripley B (2013) Package ‘rpart’ [online]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rpart/rpart.pdf. Accessed Nov 2013
  40. Thomas H (2012) Senescence, ageing and death of the whole plant. New Phytol 197:696–711. doi: 10.1111/nph.12047 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Thomas KD, Prescott CE (2000) Nitrogen availability in forest floors of three tree species on the same site: the role of litter quality. Can J Forest Res 30:1698–1706. doi: 10.1139/x00-101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tian X, Takeda H, Ando T (1997) Application of a rapid thin section method for observations on decomposing litter in mor humus form in a subalpine coniferous forest. Ecol Res 12:289–300. doi: 10.1007/BF02529458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Trofymow JA, CIDET working group (1998) The Canadian intersite decomposition experiment (CIDET): Project and Site Establishment Report. Canadian forest service information report BC-X-378Google Scholar
  44. Trofymow JA, Moore TR, Titus B, Prescott C, Morrison I, Siltanen M, Smith S, Fyles J, Wein R, Camiré C, Duschene L, Kozak L, Kranabetter M, Visser S (2002) Rates of litter decomposition over 6 years in Canadian forests: influence of litter quality and climate. Can J For Res 32:789–804. doi: 10.1139/X01-117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, Cavender-Bares J, Chapin T, Cornelissen JHC, Diemer M, Flexas J, Garnier E, Groom PK, Gulias J, Hikosaka K, Lamont BB, Lee T, Lee W, Lusk C, Midgley JJ, Navas M, Niinemets Ü, Oleksyn J, Osada N, Poorter H, Poot P, Prior L, Pyankov VI, Roumet C, Thomas SC, Tjoelker MG, Veneklaas EJ, Villar R (2004) The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–827. doi: 10.1038/nature02403 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang D, Hui D, Luo Y, Zhou G (2008) Rates of litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: global patterns and controlling factors. J Plant Ecol 1(2):85–93. doi: 10.1093/jpe/rtn002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Smith GM (2007) Analysing ecological data. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest and Conservation SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Arnold Arboretum of Harvard UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations