, Volume 18, Issue 8, pp 1472–1488 | Cite as

Differences in Ecosystem Carbon Distribution and Nutrient Cycling Linked to Forest Tree Species Composition in a Mid-Successional Boreal Forest

  • April M. MelvinEmail author
  • Michelle C. Mack
  • Jill F. Johnstone
  • A. David McGuire
  • Helene Genet
  • Edward A. G. Schuur


In the boreal forest of Alaska, increased fire severity associated with climate change is expanding deciduous forest cover in areas previously dominated by black spruce (Picea mariana). Needle-leaf conifer and broad-leaf deciduous species are commonly associated with differences in tree growth, carbon (C) and nutrient cycling, and C accumulation in soils. Although this suggests that changes in tree species composition in Alaska could impact C and nutrient pools and fluxes, few studies have measured these linkages. We quantified C, nitrogen, phosphorus, and base cation pools and fluxes in three stands of black spruce and Alaska paper birch (Betula neoalaskana) that established following a single fire event in 1958. Paper birch consistently displayed characteristics of more rapid C and nutrient cycling, including greater aboveground net primary productivity, higher live foliage and litter nutrient concentrations, and larger ammonium and nitrate pools in the soil organic layer (SOL). Ecosystem C stocks (aboveground + SOL + 0–10 cm mineral soil) were similar for the two species; however, in black spruce, 78% of measured C was found in soil pools, primarily in the SOL, whereas aboveground biomass dominated ecosystem C pools in birch forest. Radiocarbon analysis indicated that approximately one-quarter of the black spruce SOL C accumulated prior to the 1958 fire, whereas no pre-fire C was observed in birch soils. Our findings suggest that tree species exert a strong influence over C and nutrient cycling in boreal forest and forest compositional shifts may have long-term implications for ecosystem C and nutrient dynamics.


Boreal forest wildfire soils aboveground net primary productivity Picea mariana Betula neoalaskana carbon nitrogen phosphorus base cations 



We thank Camilo Mojica, Samantha Miller, Demetra Panos, Bethany Avera, Simon McClung, Alicia Sendrowski, Peter Ganzlin, Melanie Jean, and many additional undergraduate assistants at the University of Florida for help in the field and laboratory. Grace Crummer and Julia Reiskind provided analytical assistance, Heather Alexander generously shared unpublished tree C and N concentration data, and Rosvel Bracho provided guidance in setting up the incubation experiment and processing acquired data. We also thank Jamie Hollingsworth for logistical help. Funding for this research was provided by the Department of Defense’s Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) under project RC-2109. This study was also supported by the Bonanza Creek Long Term Ecological Research Program, which is jointly funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Supplementary material

10021_2015_9912_MOESM1_ESM.docx (67 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 68 kb)


  1. Aerts R. 1995. The advantages of being evergreen. Trends Ecol Evol 10:402–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander HD, Mack MC. A canopy shift in interior Alaskan boreal forests: consequences for above—and belowground carbon and nitrogen pools during post—fire succession. Ecosystems (in press).Google Scholar
  3. Alexander HD, Mack MC, Goetz S, Beck PSA, Belshe EF. 2012. Implications of increased deciduous cover on stand structure and aboveground carbon pools of Alaskan boreal forests. Ecosphere 3:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amiro BD, Orchansky AL, Barr AG, Black TA, Chambers SD, Chapin FS, Gouldenf ML, Litvakg M, Liu HP, McCaughey JH, McMillan A, Randerson JT. 2006. The effect of post-fire stand age on the boreal forest energy balance. Agric For Meteorol 140:41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldocchi D, Kelliher FM, Black TA, Jarvis P. 2000. Climate and vegetation controls on boreal zone energy exchange. Glob Change Biol 6:69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balshi MS, McGuirez AD, Duffy P, Flannigan M, Walsh J, Melillo J. 2009. Assessing the response of area burned to changing climate in western boreal North America using a multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) approach. Glob Change Biol 15:578–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauhus J, Paré D, Côté L. 1998. Effects of tree species, stand age and soil type on soil microbial biomass and its activity in a southern boreal forest. Soil Biol Biochem 30:1077–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beck PSA, Goetz SJ, Mack MC, Alexander HD, Jin YF, Randerson JT, Loranty MM. 2011. The impacts and implications of an intensifying fire regime on Alaskan boreal forest composition and albedo. Glob Change Biol 17:2853–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berner LT, Alexander HD, Loranty MM, Ganzlin P, Mack MC, Davydov SP, Goetz SJ. 2015. Biomass allometry for alder, dwarf birch, and willow in boreal forest and tundra ecosystems of far northeastern Siberia and north-central Alaska. For Ecol Manage 337:110–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boby LA, Schuur EAG, Mack MC, Verbyla D, Johnstone JF. 2010. Quantifying fire severity, carbon, and nitrogen emissions in Alaska’s boreal forest. Ecol Appl 20:1633–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bond-Lamberty B, Gower ST, Wang C, Cyr P, Veldhuis H. 2006. Nitrogen dynamics of a boreal black spruce wildfire chronosequence. Biogeochemistry 81:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bond-Lamberty B, Wang CK, Gower ST. 2004. Net primary production and net ecosystem production of a boreal black spruce wildfire chronosequence. Glob Change Biol 10:473–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Borken W, Ahrens B, Schulz C, Zimmermann L. 2011. Site-to-site variability and temporal trends of DOC concentrations and fluxes in temperate forest soils. Glob Change Biol 17:2428–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bowman WD, Theodose TA, Schardt JC, Conant RT. 1993. Constraints of nutrient availability on primary production in 2 alpine tundra communities. Ecology 74:2085–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown JK. 1974. Handbook for inventorying downed woody material. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  16. Chapin FSIII, Trainor SF, Huntington O, Lovecraft AL, Zavaleta E, Natcher DC, McGuire AD, Nelson JL, Ray L, Calef M, Fresco N, Huntington H, Rupp TS, Lo Dewilde, Naylor RL. 2008. Increasing wildfire in Alaska’s boreal forest: pathways to potential solutions of a wicked problem. Bioscience 58:531–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chapin FS, McGuire AD, Randerson J, Pielke R, Baldocchi D, Hobbie SE, Roulet N, Eugster W, Kasischke E, Rastetter EB, Zimov SA, Running SW. 2000. Arctic and boreal ecosystems of western North America as components of the climate system. Glob Change Biol 6:211–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chapin FS, Oechel WC, Van Cleve K, Lawrence W. 1987. The role of mosses in the phosphorus cycling of an Alaskan black spruce forest. Oecologia 74:310–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chapin FSI, Oswood MW, Van Cleve K, Viereck LA, Verbyla DL, Eds. 2006. Alaska’s changing boreal forest. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Côté L, Brown S, Paré D, Fyles J, Bauhus J. 2000. Dynamics of carbon acid nitrogen mineralization in relation to stand type, stand age and soil texture in the boreal mixedwood. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1079–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DeForest JL, Smemo KA, Burke DJ, Elliott HL, Becker JC. 2012. Soil microbial responses to elevated phosphorus and pH in acidic temperate deciduous forests. Biogeochemistry 109:189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DeLuca TH, Zackrisson O, Gentili F, Sellstedt A, Nilsson M-C. 2007. Ecosystem controls on nitrogen fixation in boreal feather moss communities. Oecologia 152:121–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Dyrness CT, Norum RA. 1983. The effects of experimental fires on black spruce forest floors in interior Alaska. Can J For Res 13:879–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Flanagan PW, Van Cleve K. 1983. Nutrient cycling in relation to decomposition and organic-matter quality in taiga ecosystems. Can J For Res 13:795–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flannigan M, Stocks B, Turetsky M, Wotton M. 2009a. Impacts of climate change on fire activity and fire management in the circumboreal forest. Glob Change Biol 15:549–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Flannigan MD, Krawchuk MA, de Groot WJ, Wotton BM, Gowman LM. 2009b. Implications of changing climate for global wildland fire. Int J Wildland Fire 18:483–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fröberg M, Hansson K, Kleja DB, Alavi G. 2011. Dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen leaching from scots pine, Norway spruce and silver birch stands in southern Sweden. For Ecol Manage 262:1742–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gornall JL, Jónsdóttir IS, Woodin SJ, Van der Wal R. 2007. Arctic mosses govern below-ground environment and ecosystem processes. Oecologia 153:931–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gower ST, Krankina O, Olson RJ, Apps M, Linder S, Wang C. 2001. Net primary production and carbon allocation patterns of boreal forest ecosystems. Ecol Appl 11:1395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greene DF, Macdonald SE, Haeussler S, Domenicano S, Nöel J, Jayen K, Charron I, Gauthier S, Hunt S, Gielau ET, Bergeron Y, Swift L. 2007. The reduction of organic-layer depth by wildfire in the North American boreal forest and its effect on tree recruitment by seed. Can J For Res 37:1012–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hansson K, Helmisaari H-S, Sah SP, Lange H. 2013. Fine root production and turnover of tree and understorey vegetation in Scots pine, silver birch and Norway spruce stands in SW Sweden. For Ecol Manage 309:58–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harden JW, O’Neill KP, Trumbore SE, Veldhuis H, Stocks BJ. 1997. Moss and soil contributions to the annual net carbon flux of a maturing boreal forest. J Geophys Res Atmos 102:28805–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hicks Pries CE, Schuur EAG, Crummer KG. 2012. Holocene carbon stocks and carbon accumulation rates altered in soils undergoing permafrost thaw. Ecosystems 15:162–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hobbie SE. 1992. Effects of plant species on nutrient cycling. Trends Ecol Evol 7:336–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Hobbie SE, Nadelhoffer KJ, Högberg P. 2002. A synthesis: the role of nutrients as constraints on carbon balances in boreal and arctic regions. Plant Soil 242:163–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hobbie SE, Schimel JP, Trumbore SE, Randerson JR. 2000. Controls over carbon storage and turnover in high-latitude soils. Glob Change Biol 6:196–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Högberg MN, Högberg P, Myrold DD. 2007. Is microbial community composition in boreal forest soils determined by pH, C-to-N ratio, the trees, or all three? Oecologia 150:590–601.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Huang WZ, Schoenau JJ. 1997. Seasonal and spatial variations in soil nitrogen and phosphorus supply rates in a boreal aspen forest. Can J Soil Sci 77:597–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnstone JF, Chapin FS, Hollingsworth TN, Mack MC, Romanovsky V, Turetsky M. 2010a. Fire, climate change, and forest resilience in interior Alaska. Can J For Res 40:1302–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnstone JF, Hollingsworth TN, Chapin FSIII, Mack MC. 2010b. Changes in fire regime break the legacy lock on successional trajectories in Alaskan boreal forest. Glob Change Biol 16:1281–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jones JB, Petrone KC, Finlay JC, Hinzman LD, Bolton WR. 2005. Nitrogen loss from watersheds of interior Alaska underlain with discontinuous permafrost. Geophys Res Lett 32:L02401.Google Scholar
  42. Jorgenson MT, Romanovsky V, Harden J, Shur Y, O’Donnell J, Schuur EAG, Kanevskiy M, Marchenko S. 2010. Resilience and vulnerability of permafrost to climate change. Can J For Res 40:1219–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kasischke E, Verbyla D, Rupp TS, McGuire AD, Murphy KA, Jandt R, Barnes JL, Hoy EE, Duffy PA, Calef M, Turetsky MR. 2010. Alaska’s changing fire regime—implications for the vulnerability of its boreal forests. Can J For Res 40:1313–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kelly R, Chipman ML, Higuera PE, Stefanova I, Brubaker LB, Hu FS. 2013. Recent burning of boreal forests exceeds fire regime limits of the past 10,000 years. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:13055–60.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Lambers H, Poorter H. 1992. Inherent variation in growth rate between higher plants: a search for physiological causes and ecological consequences. Adv Ecol Res 23:187–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lavoie M, Mack MC, Schuur EAG. 2011. Effects of elevated nitrogen and temperature on carbon and nitrogen dynamics in Alaskan arctic and boreal soils. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 116:G03013.Google Scholar
  47. Légaré S, Paré D, Bergeron Y. 2005. Influence of aspen on forest floor properties in black spruce-dominated stands. Plant Soil 275:207–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lindo Z, Visser S. 2003. Microbial biomass, nitrogen and phosphorus mineralization, and mesofauna in boreal conifer and deciduous forest floors following partial and clear-cut harvesting. Can J For Res 33:1610–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lynch JA, Clark JS, Bigelow NH, Edwards ME, Finney BP. 2002. Geographic and temporal variations in fire history in boreal ecosystems of Alaska. J Geophys Res Atmos 108:8-1–-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mack MC, Bret-Harte MS, Hollingsworth TN, Jandt RR, Schuur EAG, Shaver GR, Verbyla DL. 2011. Carbon loss from an unprecedented arctic tundra wildfire. Nature 475:489–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Mann DH, Rupp TS, Olson MA, Duffy PA. 2012. Is Alaska’s boreal forest now crossing a major ecological threshold? Arct Antarct Alp Res 44:319–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Markham JH. 2009. Variation in moss-associated nitrogen fixation in boreal forest stands. Oecologia 161:353–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Melillo JM, Aber JD, Muratore JF. 1982. Nitrogen and lignin control of hardwood leaf litter decomposition dynamics. Ecology 63:621–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. O’Donnell JA, Harden JW, McGuire AD, Kanevskiy MZ, Jorgenson MT, Xu XM. 2011. The effect of fire and permafrost interactions on soil carbon accumulation in an upland black spruce ecosystem of interior Alaska: implications for post-thaw carbon loss. Glob Change Biol 17:1461–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. O’Donnell JA, Romanovsky VE, Harden JW, McGuire AD. 2009. The effect of moisture content on the thermal conductivity of moss and organic soil horizons from black spruce ecosystems in interior Alaska. Soil Sci 174:646–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Paré D, Bergeron Y. 1996. Effect of colonizing tree species on soil nutrient availability in a clay soil of the boreal mixedwood. Can J For Res 26:1022–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Quesnel PO, Côté B. 2009. Prevalence of phosphorus, potassium, and calcium limitations in white spruce across Canada. J Plant Nutr 32:1290–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rapalee G, Trumbore SE, Davidson EA, Harden JW, Veldhuis H. 1998. Soil carbon stocks and their rates of accumulation and loss in a boreal forest landscape. Global Biogeochem Cycles 12:687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rau BM, Melvin AM, Johnson DW, Goodale CL, Blank RR, Fredriksen G, Miller WW, Murphy JD, Todd DE Jr, Walker RF. 2011. Revisiting soil carbon and nitrogen sampling: quantitative pits versus rotary cores. Soil Sci 176:273–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reich PB, Grigal DF, Aber JD, Gower ST. 1997. Nitrogen mineralization and productivity in 50 hardwood and conifer stands on diverse soils. Ecology 78:335–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rocca ME, Miniat CF, Mitchell RJ. 2014. Introduction to the regional assessments: climate change, wildfire, and forest ecosystem services in the USA. For Ecol Manage 327:265–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rühling A, Tyler G. 1970. Sorption and retention of heavy metals in woodland moss Hylocomium splendens (Hedw.) Br. et Sch. Oikos 21:92–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schuur EAG, Vogel JG, Crummer KG, Lee H, Sickman JO, Osterkamp TE. 2009. The effect of permafrost thaw on old carbon release and net carbon exchange from tundra. Nature 459:556–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Shetler G, Turetsky MR, Kane ES, Kasischke E. 2008. Sphagnum mosses limit total carbon consumption during fire in Alaskan black spruce forests. Can J For Res 38:2328–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Terrier A, Girardin MP, Périé C, Legendre P, Bergeron Y. 2013. Potential changes in forest composition could reduce impacts of climate change on boreal wildfires. Ecol Appl 23:21–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Troth JL, Deneke FJ, Brown LM. 1976. Upland aspen/birch and black spruce stands and their litter and soil properties in interior Alaska. Forest Science 22:33–44.Google Scholar
  67. Trumbore SE. 1997. Potential responses of soil organic carbon to global environmental change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:8284–91.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Trumbore SE, Harden JW. 1997. Accumulation and turnover of carbon in organic and mineral soils of the BOREAS northern study area. J Geophys Res Atmos 102:28817–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Turetsky MR, Bond-Lamberty B, Euskirchen E, Talbot J, Frolking S, McGuire AD, Tuittila ES. 2012. The resilience and functional role of moss in boreal and arctic ecosystems. New Phytol 196:49–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Turetsky MR, Kane ES, Harden JW, Ottmar RD, Manies KL, Hoy E, Kasischke ES. 2011. Recent acceleration of biomass burning and carbon losses in Alaskan forests and peatlands. Nat Geosci 4:27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Turetsky MR, Mack MC, Hollingsworth TN, Harden JW. 2010. The role of mosses in ecosystem succession and function in Alaska’s boreal forest. Can J For Res 40:1237–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. U.S. Department of Agriculture NRCS. 2013. Web Soil Survey, soil map—greater Nenana Area, Alaska, and North Star Area, Alaska.Google Scholar
  73. Underwood AJ. 1997. Experiments in ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 504p.Google Scholar
  74. Van Cleve K, Barney R, Schlentner R. 1981. Evidence of temperature control of production and nutrient cycling in 2 interior Alaska black spruce ecosystems. Can J For Res 11:258–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Van Cleve K, Dyrness CT, Viereck LA, Fox J, Chapin FS, Oechel W. 1983a. Taiga ecosystems in interior Alaska. Bioscience 33:39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Van Cleve K, Oliver L, Schlentner R, Viereck LA, Dyrness CT. 1983b. Productivity and nutrient cycling in taiga forest ecosystems. Can J For Res 13:747–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vance ED, Chapin FS. 2001. Substrate limitations to microbial activity in taiga forest floors. Soil Biol Biochem 33:173–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vesterdal L, Clarke N, Sigurdsson BD, Gundersen P. 2013. Do tree species influence soil carbon stocks in temperate and boreal forests? For Ecol Manage 309:4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Viereck LA, Dyrness CT, Van Cleve K, Foote MJ. 1983. Vegetation, soils, and forest productivity in selected forest types in interior Alaska. Can J For Res 13:703–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yarie J, Billings S. 2002. Carbon balance of the taiga forest within Alaska: present and future. Can J For Res 32:757–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Yuan ZY, Chen HYH. 2010. Fine root biomass, production, turnover rates, and nutrient contents in boreal forest ecosystems in relation to species, climate, fertility, and stand age: literature review and meta-analyses. Crit Rev Plant Sci 29:204–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • April M. Melvin
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Michelle C. Mack
    • 1
    • 3
  • Jill F. Johnstone
    • 4
  • A. David McGuire
    • 5
  • Helene Genet
    • 6
  • Edward A. G. Schuur
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.AAAS Science & Technology Policy FellowWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Center for Ecosystem Science and Society and Department of Biological SciencesNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiologyUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  5. 5.U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research UnitUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanksUSA
  6. 6.Institute of Arctic BiologyUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanksUSA

Personalised recommendations