Ecosystems

, Volume 17, Issue 8, pp 1371–1383 | Cite as

Increasing Red Maple Leaf Litter Alters Decomposition Rates and Nitrogen Cycling in Historically Oak-Dominated Forests of the Eastern U.S.

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Without canopy-opening fire disturbances, shade-tolerant, fire-sensitive species like red maple (Acer rubrum L.) proliferate in many historically oak-dominated forests of the eastern U.S. Here, we evaluate potential implications of increased red maple dominance in upland oak forests of Kentucky on rates of leaf litter decomposition and nitrogen (N) cycling. Over 5 years, we evaluated mass loss of leaf litter and changes in total N and carbon (C) within six leaf litter treatments comprised of scarlet oak, chestnut oak, and red maple, and three mixed treatments of increasing red maple contribution to the leaf litter pool (25, 50, and 75% red maple). Over a 1.5-year period, we conducted a plot-level leaf litter manipulation study using the same treatments plus a control and assessed changes in net nitrification, ammonification, and N mineralization within leaf litter and upper (0–5 cm depth) mineral soil horizons. Red maple leaf litter contained more “fast” decomposing material and initially lost mass faster than either oak species. All litter treatments immobilized N during initial stages of decomposition, but the degree of immobilization decreased with decreasing red maple contribution. The leaf litter plot-level experiment confirmed slower N mineralization rates for red maple only plots compared to chestnut oak plots. As red maple increases, initial leaf litter decomposition rates will increase, leading to lower fuel loads and more N immobilization from the surrounding environment. These changes may reduce forest flammability and resource availability and promote red maple expansion and thereby the “mesophication” of eastern forests of the U.S.

Keywords

fire suppression decomposition nitrogen immobilization red maple oak leaf litter mesophication 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Joint Fire Science Program (01-3-3-14, 04-2-1-06) and would not have been possible without the field and laboratory help of Millie Hamilton, Jessi Lyons, Jamison Paul, Gretchen Carmean, Autumn Foushee, Michael Mahala, Stephen Bell, Amy Herberg, Adam Sovkoplas, Elizabeth Carlisle, and many others. We are also grateful to our collaborators at the U.S. Forest Service who assisted with field set-up and data collection, and to Megan Poulette, Matt Weand, and Ryan McEwan who provided insightful comments and suggestions throughout this study. This study (#14-09-011) is connected with a project of the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station.

References

  1. Aber JD, Melillo JM, McClaugherty CA. 1990. Predicting long-term patterns of mass loss, nitrogen dynamics, and soil organic matter formation from initial fine litter chemistry in temperate forest ecosystems. Can J Bot 68:2201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams MD. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forests. BioScience 42:346–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abrams MD. 1998. The red maple paradox. BioScience 48:355–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abrams MD. 2005. Prescribing fire in eastern oak forests: is time running out? North J Appl For 22:190–6.Google Scholar
  5. Alexander HD, Arthur MA. 2010. Implications of a predicted shift from upland oaks to red maple on forest hydrology and nutrient availability. Can J For Res 40:716–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arthur MA, Alexander HD, Dey DC, Schweitzer CJ, Loftis DL. 2012. Refining the oak-fire hypothesis for management of oak-dominated forests of the eastern United States. J For 110:257–66.Google Scholar
  7. Arthur MA, Paratley RD, Blankenship BA. 1998. Single and repeated fires affect survival and regeneration of woody and herbaceous species in an oak-pine forest. J Torrey Bot Soc 125:225–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ashton IW, Hyatt LA, Howe KM, Gurevitch J, Lerdau MT. 2005. Invasive species accelerate decomposition and litter nitrogen loss in a mixed deciduous forest. Ecol Appl 15:1263–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ball BA, Hunter MD, Kominoski JS, Swan CM, Bradford MA. 2008. Consequences of non-random species loss for decomposition dynamics: experimental evidence for additive and non-additive effects. J Ecol 96:303–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blair JM, Crossley DA Jr. 1988. Litter decomposition, nitrogen dynamics and litter microarthropods in a Southern Appalachian Hardwood Forest 8 years following clearcutting. J Appl Ecol 25:683–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blair JM. 1988. Nutrient release from decomposing foliar litter of three tree species with spicial reference to calcium, magnesium and potassium dynamics. Plant Soil 110:49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blankenship BA, Arthur MA. 1999. Prescribed fire affects eastern white pine recruitment and survival on eastern Kentucky ridgetops. South J Appl For 23:144–50.Google Scholar
  13. Blankenship BA, Arthur MA. 2006. Stand structure over 9 years in burned and fire-excluded oak stands on the Cumberland Plateau, Kentucky. For Ecol Manag 225:134–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boberg JB, Finlay RD, Stenlid J, Ekblad A, Lindahl BD. 2014. Nitrogen and carbon reallocation in fungal mycelia during decomposition of boreal forest litter. PLoS One 9:e92897.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brooks ML, D’Antonio CM, Richardson DM, Grace JB, Keeley JE, DiTomaso JM, Hobbs RJ, Pellant M, Pyke D. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54:677–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carreiro MM, Sinsabaugh RL, Repert DA, Parkhurst DF. 2000. Microbial enzyme shifts explain litter decay responses to simulated nitrogen deposition. Ecology 81:2359–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chapman SK, Newman GS. 2010. Biodiversity at the plant–soil interface: microbial abundance and community structure respond to litter mixing. Oecologia 162:763–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JH, Amatangelo K, Dorrepaal E, Eviner VT, Godoy O, Hobbie SE, Hoorens B, Kurokawa H, Pérez-Harguindeguy N et al. 2008. Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide. Ecol Lett 11:1065–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cotrufo MF, Wallenstein MD, Boot CM, Denef K, Paul E. 2013. The Microbial Efficiency-Matrix Stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: do labile plant inputs form stable soil organic matter? Glob Change Biol 19:988–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Boer W, Folman LB, Summerbell RC, Boddy L. 2005. Living in a fungal world: impact of fungi on soil bacterial niche development. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29:795–811.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Delaney MT, Fernandez IJ, Simmons JA, Briggs RD. 1996. Red Maple and White Pine litter quality: initial changes with decomposition. http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/aes_techbulletin/38/. Accessed 17 Jan 2014.
  22. Finzi AC, Van Breemen N, Canham CD. 1998. Canopy tree–soil interactions within temperate forests: species effects on soil carbon and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8:440–6.Google Scholar
  23. Finzi AC, Canham CD. 1998. Non-additive effects of litter mixtures on net N mineralization in a southern New England forest. For Ecol Manag 105:129–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Finzi AC, Schlesinger WH. 2002. Species control variation in litter decomposition in a pine forest exposed to elevated CO2. Glob Change Biol 8:1217–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foster S, Conner G. 2001. Kentucky Climate Center. Department of Geography and Geology, Western Kentucky University.Google Scholar
  26. Fox VL, Buehler CP, Byers CM, Drake SE. 2010. Forest composition, leaf litter, and songbird communities in oak-vs. maple-dominated forests in the eastern United States. For Ecol Manag 259:2426–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gartner TB, Cardon ZG. 2004. Decomposition dynamics in mixed-species leaf litter. Oikos 104:230–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goins SM, Chapman JI, McEwan RW. 2013. Composition shifts, disturbance, and canopy-accession strategy in an oldgrowth forest of Southwestern Ohio, USA. Nat Areas J 33:384–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Green SR, Arthur MA, Blankenship BA. 2010. Oak and red maple seedling survival and growth following periodic prescribed fire on xeric ridgetops on the Cumberland Plateau. For Ecol Manag 259:2256–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hayes RA. 1993. Soil survey of Powell and Wolfe counties, Kentucky. http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US9522838. Accessed 13 June 2014.
  31. Hickman JE, Ashton IW, Howe KM, Lerdau MT. 2013. The native–invasive balance: implications for nutrient cycling in ecosystems. Oecologia 173:319–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kramer C, Trumbore S, Fröberg M, Cisneros Dozal LM, Zhang D, Xu X, Santos GM, Hanson PJ. 2010. Recent (<4 year old) leaf litter is not a major source of microbial carbon in a temperate forest mineral soil. Soil Biol Biochem 42:1028–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kreye JK, Varner JM, Hiers JK, Mola J. 2013. Toward a mechanism for eastern North American forest mesophication: differential litter drying across 17 species. Ecol Appl 23:1976–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuddes-Fischer LM, Arthur MA. 2002. Response of understory vegetation and tree regeneration to a single prescribed fire in oak-pine forests. Nat Areas J 22:43–52.Google Scholar
  35. Lorimer CG. 1984. Development of the red maple understory in northeastern oak forests. For Sci 30:3–22.Google Scholar
  36. McEwan RW, Dyer JM, Pederson N. 2011. Multiple interacting ecosystem drivers: toward an encompassing hypothesis of oak forest dynamics across eastern North America. Ecography 34:244–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McShea WJ. 2000. The influence of acorn crops on annual variation in rodent and bird populations. Ecology 81:228–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Melillo JM, Aber JD, Muratore JF. 1982. Nitrogen and lignin control of hardwood leaf litter decomposition dynamics. Ecology 63:621–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nowacki GJ, Abrams MD. 2008. The demise of fire and “mesophication” of forests in the eastern United States. BioScience 58:123–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Olson JS. 1963. Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44:322–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parton W, Silver WL, Burke IC, Grassens L, Harmon ME, Currie WS, King JY, Adair EC, Brandt LA, Hart SC et al. 2007. Global-scale similarities in nitrogen release patterns during long-term decomposition. Science 315:361–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perry DA, Oren R, Hart SC. 2008. Forest ecosystems. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press.Google Scholar
  43. Prescott CE. 2010. Litter decomposition: what controls it and how can we alter it to sequester more carbon in forest soils? Biogeochemistry 101:133–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rodewald AD, Abrams MD. 2002. Floristics and avian community structure: implications for regional changes in eastern forest composition. For Sci 48:267–72.Google Scholar
  45. Rubbo MJ, Kiesecker JM. 2004. Leaf litter composition and community structure: translating regional species changes into local dynamics. Ecology 85:2519–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rubino M, Dungait JAJ, Evershed RP, Bertolini T, De Angelis P, D’Onofrio A, Lagomarsino A, Lubritto C, Merola A, Terrasi F et al. 2010. Carbon input belowground is the major C flux contributing to leaf litter mass loss: evidences from a<sup>13</sup>C labelled-leaf litter experiment. Soil Biol Biochem 42:1009–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rustad LE, Cronan CS. 1988. Element loss and retention during litter decay in a red spruce stand in Maine. Can J For Res 18:947–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith SJ, Young LB, Miller GE. 1977. Evaluation of soil nitrogen mineralization potentials under modified field conditions. Soil Sci Soc Am J 41:74–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Washburn CS, Arthur MA. 2003. Spatial variability in soil nutrient availability in an oak-pine forest: potential effects of tree species. Can J For Res 33:2321–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wider RK, Lang GE. 1982. A critique of the analytical methods used in examining decomposition data obtained from litter bags. Ecology 63:1636–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Texas - BrownsvilleBrownsvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of ForestryUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations