, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 68–84 | Cite as

Decomposition Patterns of Foliar Litter and Deadwood in Managed and Unmanaged Stands: A 13-Year Experiment in Boreal Mixedwoods

  • Manuella StrukeljEmail author
  • Suzanne Brais
  • Marc J. Mazerolle
  • David Paré
  • Pierre Drapeau


Litter decomposition is a major driver of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) cycles in forest ecosystems and has major implications for C sequestration and nutrient availability. However, empirical information regarding long-term decomposition rates of foliage and wood remains rare. In this study, we assessed long-term C and N dynamics (12–13 years) during decomposition of foliage and wood for three boreal tree species, under a range of harvesting intensities and slash treatments. We used model selection based on the second-order Akaike’s Information Criterion to determine which decomposition model had the most support. The double-exponential model provided a good fit to C mass loss for foliage of trembling aspen, white spruce, and balsam fir, as well as aspen wood. These litters underwent a rapid initial phase of leaching and mineralisation, followed by a slow decomposition. In contrast, for spruce and fir wood, the single-exponential model had the most support. The long-term average decay rate of wood was faster than that of foliage for aspen, but not of conifers. However, we found no evidence that fir and spruce wood decomposed at slower rates than the recalcitrant fraction of their foliage. The critical C:N ratios, at which net N mineralisation began, were higher for wood than for foliage. Long-term decay rates following clear-cutting were either similar or faster than those observed in control stands, depending on litter material, tree species, and slash treatment. The critical C:N ratios were reached later and decreased for all conifer litters following stem-only clear-cutting, indicating increased N retention in harvested sites with high slash loads. Partial harvesting had weak effects on C and N dynamics of decaying litters. A comprehensive understanding of the long-term patterns and controls of C and N dynamics following forest disturbance would improve our ability to forecast the implications of forest harvesting for C sequestration and nutrient availability.


long-term decay rate woody debris foliage partial cutting clear-cut C:N ratio litterbag 



We are grateful to Josée Frenette, Mylène Bélanger, Émilie Robert, Alfred Coulombe, and Mario Major for field assistance, Serge Rousseau for laboratory analyses, and William F. J. Parsons for English revision. We are also thankful to two anonymous reviewers and Dr. Stephen Hart for their comprehensive review of the manuscript. This study was supported by grants from the Programme de financement de la recherche et du développement en aménagement forestier of the Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec, from the Cooperative Research Development Program to Drapeau and collaborators (NSERC, RDC475301-14), and Discovery Grant to Brais (NSERCs 217118) of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, by the Lake Duparquet Research and Teaching Forest, and by the industrial partner Tembec Inc.

Supplementary material

10021_2017_135_MOESM1_ESM.docx (52 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 53 kb)


  1. Ågren GI, Hyvönen R, Berglund SL, Hobbie SE. 2013. Estimating the critical N:C from litter decomposition data and its relation to soil organic matter stoichiometry. Soil Biol Biochem 67:312–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angers VA, Drapeau P, Bergeron Y. 2012. Mineralization rates and factors influencing snag decay in four North American boreal tree species. Can J For Res 42:157–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldrian P, Lindahl B. 2011. Decomposition in forest ecosystems: after decades of research still novel findings. Fungal Ecol 4:359–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barg AK, Edmonds RL. 1999. Influence of partial cutting on site microclimate, soil nitrogen dynamics, and microbial biomass in Douglas-fir stands in western Washington. Can J For Res 29:705–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaudet M, Harvey BD, Messier C, Coates KD, Poulin J, Kneeshaw DD, Brais S, Bergeron Y. 2011. Managing understory light conditions in boreal mixedwoods through variation in the intensity and spatial pattern of harvest: a modelling approach. For Ecol Manag 261:84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belleau A, Brais S, Paré D. 2006. Soil nutrient dynamics after harvesting and slash treatments in boreal aspen stands. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1189–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg B. 2000. Litter decomposition and organic matter turnover in northern forest soils. For Ecol Manag 133:13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berg B, Ekbohm G. 1983. Nitrogen immobilization in decomposing needle litter at variable carbon:nitrogen ratios. Ecology 64:63–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergeron Y, Gauthier S, Flannigan M, Kafka V. 2004. Fire regimes at the transition between mixedwood and coniferous boreal forest in Northwestern Quebec. Ecology 85:1916–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Boddy L, Watkinson SC. 1995. Wood decomposition, higher fungi, and their role in nutrient redistribution. Can J Bot 73:1377–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brais S, Camiré C. 1992. Keys for soil moisture regime evaluation for northwestern Quebec. Can J For Res 22:718–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brais S, Harvey BD, Bergeron Y, Messier C, Greene D, Belleau A, Paré D. 2004. Testing forest ecosystem management in boreal mixedwoods of northwestern Quebec: initial response of aspen stands to different levels of harvesting. Can J For Res 34:431–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brais S, Paré D, Lierman C. 2006. Tree bole mineralization rates of four species of the Canadian eastern boreal forest: implications for nutrient dynamics following stand-replacing disturbances. Can J For Res 36:2331–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brais S, Work TT, Robert É, O’Connor CD, Strukelj M, Bose AK, Celentano D, Harvey BD. 2013. Ecosystem responses to partial harvesting in eastern boreal mixedwood stands. Forests 4:364–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brassard BW, Chen HYH. 2008. Effects of forest type and disturbance on diversity of coarse woody debris in boreal forest. Ecosystems 11:1078–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference. A practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Cornelissen JHC, Sass-Klaassen U, Poorter L, Van Geffen K, Van Logtestijn RSP, Van Hal J, Goudzwaard L, Sterck FJ, Klaassen RKWM, Freschet GT, Van der Wal A, Eshuis H, Zuo J, De Boer W, Lamers T, Weemstra M, Cretin V, Martin R, Den Ouden J, Berg MP, Aerts R, Mohren GMJ, Hefting MM. 2012. Controls on coarse wood decay in temperate tree species: birth of the LOGLIFE experiment. AMBIO 41:231–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC, Allison SD, Bauhus J, Eggleton P, Preston CM, Scarff F, Weedon JT, Wirth C, Zanne AE. 2009. Plant traits and wood fates across the globe: rotted, burned, or consumed? Glob Chang Biol 15:2431–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 Chang Biol 19:988–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Eichlerová I, Homolka L, Žifčáková L, Lisá L, Dobiášová P, Baldrian P. 2015. Enzymatic systems involved in decomposition reflects the ecology and taxonomy of saprotrophic fungi. Fungal Ecol 13:10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Environment Canada. 2015. Canadian climate normals or averages 1981–2010. Available from
  23. Finér L, Jurgensen M, Palviainen M, Piirainen S, Page-Dumroese D. 2016. Does clear-cut harvesting accelerate initial wood decomposition? A five-year study with standard wood material. For Ecol Manag 372:10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fioretto A, Di Nardo C, Papa S, Fuggi A. 2005. Lignin and cellulose degradation and nitrogen dynamics during decomposition of three leaf litter species in a Mediterranean ecosystem. Soil Biol Biochem 37:1083–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foudyl-Bey S, Brais S, Drouin P. 2016. Litter heterogeneity modulates fungal activity, C mineralization and N retention in the boreal forest floor. Soil Biol Biochem 100:264–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fukasawa Y, Osono T, Takeda H. 2009. Dynamics of physicochemical properties and occurrence of fungal fruit bodies during decomposition of coarse woody debris of Fagus crenata. J For Res 14:20–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fukasawa Y, Osono T, Takeda H. 2011. Wood decomposing abilities of diverse lignicolous fungi on nondecayed and decayed beech wood. Mycologia 103:474–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hagemann U, Moroni MT, Gleißner J, Makeschin F. 2010. Disturbance history influences downed woody debris and soil respiration. For Ecol Manag 260:1762–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hakala TK, Maijala P, Konn J, Hatakka A. 2004. Evaluation of novel wood-rotting polypores and corticioid fungi for the decay and biopulping of Norway spruce (Picea abies) wood. Enzyme Microb Technol 34:255–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harmon ME, Bond-Lamberty B, Tang J, Vargas R. 2011. Heterotrophic respiration in disturbed forests: a review with examples from North America. J Geophys Res 116:1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harmon ME, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Sollins P, Gregory SV, Lattin JD, Anderson NH, Cline SP, Aumen NG, Sedell JR, Lienkaemper GW, Cromack JRK, Cummins KW. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. In: Caswell H, Ed. Advances in ecological research. Orlando: Academic Press. p 133–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harmon ME, Silver WL, Fasth B, Chen H, Burke IC, Parton WJ, Hart SC, Currie WS, LIDET. 2009. Long-term patterns of mass loss during the decomposition of leaf and fine root litter: an intersite comparison. Glob Chang Biol 15:1320–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hart SC. 1999. Nitrogen transformations in fallen tree boles and mineral soil of an old-growth forest. Ecology 80:1385–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hart SC, Firestone MK. 1991. Forest floor-mineral soil interactions in the internal nitrogen cycle of an old-growth forest. Biogeochemistry 12:103–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hart SC, Firestone MK, Paul EA. 1992. Decomposition and nutrient dynamics of ponderosa pine needles in a Mediterranean-type climate. Can J For Res 22:306–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hope GD, Prescott CE, Blevins LL. 2003. Responses of available soil nitrogen and litter decomposition to openings of different sizes in dry interior Douglas-fir forests in British Columbia. For Ecol Manag 186:33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kebli H, Brais S, Kernaghan G, Drouin P. 2012. Impact of harvesting intensity on wood-inhabiting fungi in boreal aspen forests of Eastern Canada. For Ecol Manag 279:45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kebli H, Kernaghan G, Drouin P, Brais S. 2014. Development and activity of early saproxylic fungal communities in harvested and unmanaged boreal mixedwood stands. Eur J For Res 133:905–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laiho R, Prescott CE. 2004. Decay and nutrient dynamics of coarse woody debris in northern coniferous forests: a synthesis. Can J For Res 34:763–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lindahl BD, Taylor AFS, Finlay RD. 2002. Defining nutritional constraints on carbon cycling in boreal forests—towards a less `phytocentric’ perspective. Plant Soil 242:123–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lorenz K, Lal R, Preston CM, Nierop KGJ. 2007. Strengthening the soil organic carbon pool by increasing contributions from recalcitrant aliphatic bio(macro)molecules. Geoderma 142:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mäkiranta P, Laiho R, Penttilä T, Minkkinen K. 2012. The impact of logging residue on soil GHG fluxes in a drained peatland forest. Soil Biol Biochem 48:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Manzoni S, Jackson RB, Trofymow JA, Porporato A. 2008. The global stoichiometry of litter nitrogen mineralization. Science 321:684–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Manzoni S, Piñeiro G, Jackson RB, Jobbágy EG, Kim JH, Porporato A. 2012. Analytical models of soil and litter decomposition: solutions for mass loss and time-dependent decay rates. Soil Biol Biochem 50:66–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marra JL, Edmonds RL. 1996. Coarse woody debris and soil respiration in a clearcut on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington, U.S.A. Can J For Res 26:1337–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mazerolle MJ. 2015. AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2.0-3. Available from
  47. Moore TR, Trofymow JA, Prescott CE, Fyles J, Titus BD, group CW. 2006. Patterns of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics in decomposing foliar litter in Canadian forests. Ecosystems 9:46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moore TR, Trofymow JA, Prescott CE, Titus BD, Group CW. 2011. Nature and nurture in the dynamics of C, N and P during litter decomposition in Canadian forests. Plant Soil 339:163–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mooshammer M, Wanek W, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S, Richter A. 2014. Stoichiometric imbalances between terrestrial decomposer communities and their resources: mechanisms and implications of microbial adaptations to their resources. Front Microbiol 5:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Morin H, Laprise D, Bergeron Y. 1993. Chronology of spruce budworm outbreaks near Lake Duparquet, Abitibi region, Quebec. Can J For Res 23:1497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Olson JS. 1963. Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44:322–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Parton W, 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 315:361–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Philpott TJ, Prescott CE, Chapman WK, Grayston SJ. 2014. Nitrogen translocation and accumulation by a cord-forming fungus (Hypholoma fasciculare) into simulated woody debris. For Ecol Manag 315:121–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Prescott CE. 1997. Effects of clearcutting and alternative silvicultural systems on rates of decomposition and nitrogen mineralization in a coastal montane coniferous forest. For Ecol Manag 95:253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Prescott CE, Blevins LL, Staley CL. 2000. Effects of clear-cutting on decomposition rates of litter and forest floor in forests of British Columbia. Can J For Res 30:1751–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. R Development Core Team. 2015. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Version 2.15.2. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from
  59. Rajala T, Peltoniemi M, Pennanen T, Mäkipää R. 2012. Fungal community dynamics in relation to substrate quality of decaying Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) logs in boreal forests. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 81:494–505.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Saucier J-P, Bergeron J-F, Grondin P, Robitaille A. 1998. Les régions écologiques du Québec méridional (3rd version). L’Aubelle 124:S1–12.Google Scholar
  61. Schimel JP, Hättenschwiler S. 2007. Nitrogen transfer between decomposing leaves of different N status. Soil Biol Biochem 39:1428–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Seastedt TR, Crossley DAJ. 1981. Microarthropod response following cable logging and clear-cutting in the southern Appalachians. Ecology 62:126–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smyth CE, Titus B, Trofymow JA, Moore TR, Preston CM, Prescott CE, the CIDET Working Group. 2016. Patterns of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics in decomposing wood blocks in Canadian forests. Plant Soil 409:459–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Šnajdr J, Cajthaml T, Valášková V, Merhautová V, Petránková M, Spetz P, Leppänen K, Baldrian P. 2011. Transformation of Quercus petraea litter: successive changes in litter chemistry are reflected in differential enzyme activity and changes in the microbial community composition. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 75:291–303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Soil Classification Working Group. 1998. The Canadian system of soil classification. Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.Google Scholar
  66. Strukelj M, Brais S, Paré D. 2015. Nine-year changes in carbon dynamics following different intensities of harvesting in boreal aspen stands. Eur J For Res 134:737–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Strukelj M, Brais S, Quideau SA, Angers VA, Kebli H, Drapeau P, Oh S-W. 2013. Chemical transformations in downed logs and snags of mixed boreal species during decomposition. Can J For Res 43:785–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Strukelj M, Brais S, Quideau SA, Oh S-W. 2012. Chemical transformations of deadwood and foliar litter of mixed boreal species during decomposition. Can J For Res 42:772–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Štursová M, Žifčáková L, Leigh MB, Burgess R, Baldrian P. 2012. Cellulose utilization in forest litter and soil: identification of bacterial and fungal decomposers. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 80:735–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Talbot JM, Yelle DJ, Nowick J, Treseder KK. 2012. Litter decay rates are determined by lignin chemistry. Biogeochemistry 108:279–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thevenot M, Dignac M-F, Rumpel C. 2010. Fate of lignins in soils: a review. Soil Biol Biochem 42:1200–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Trofymow JA, Preston CM, Prescott CE. 1995. Litter quality and its potential effect on decay rates of materials from Canadian forests. Water Air Soil Pollut 82:215–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Von Lützow M, Kögel-Knabner I, Ekschmitt K, Matzner E, Guggenberger G, Marschner B, Flessa H. 2006. Stabilization of organic matter in temperate soils: mechanisms and their relevance under different soil conditions—a review. Eur J Soil Sci 57:426–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wickings K, Grandy AS, Reed SC, Cleveland CC. 2012. The origin of litter chemical complexity during decomposition. Ecol Lett 15:1180–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Wieder 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
  76. Yin X, Perry JA, Dixon RK. 1989. Influence of canopy removal on oak forest floor decomposition. Can J For Res 19:204–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zhang D, Hui D, Luo Y, Zhou G. 2008. Rates of litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: global patterns and controlling factors. J Plant Ecol 1:85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuella Strukelj
    • 1
    Email author
  • Suzanne Brais
    • 2
  • Marc J. Mazerolle
    • 2
    • 3
  • David Paré
    • 4
  • Pierre Drapeau
    • 1
  1. 1.Département des sciences biologiques, Chaire Industrielle CRNSG-UQAT-UQAM en Aménagement Forestier Durable, Centre d’Étude de la ForêtUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Institut de recherche sur les forêts, Chaire Industrielle CRSNG-UQAT-UQAM en Aménagement Forestier Durable, Centre d’Étude de la ForêtUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueRouyn-NorandaCanada
  3. 3.Département des sciences du bois et de la forêt, Centre d’Étude de la ForêtUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  4. 4.Service canadien des Forêts, Centre de foresterie des LaurentidesRessources Naturelles CanadaSainte-Foy, QuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations