, Volume 21, Issue 8, pp 1580–1592 | Cite as

Long-Term Climate Regime Modulates the Impact of Short-Term Climate Variability on Decomposition in Alpine Grassland Soils

  • Inge H. J. AlthuizenEmail author
  • Hanna Lee
  • Judith M. Sarneel
  • Vigdis Vandvik


Decomposition of plant litter is an important process in the terrestrial carbon cycle and makes up approximately 70% of the global carbon flux from soils to the atmosphere. Climate change is expected to have significant direct and indirect effects on the litter decomposition processes at various timescales. Using the TeaBag Index, we investigated the impact on decomposition of short-term direct effects of temperature and precipitation by comparing temporal variability over years, versus long-term climate impacts that incorporate indirect effects mediated through environmental changes by comparing sites along climatic gradients. We measured the initial decomposition rate (k) and the stabilization factor (S; amount of labile litter stabilizing) across a climate grid combining three levels of summer temperature (6.5–10.5°C) with four levels of annual precipitation (600–2700 mm) in three summers with varying temperature and precipitation. Several (a)biotic factors were measured to characterize environmental differences between sites. Increased temperatures enhanced k, whereas increased precipitation decreased k across years and climatic regimes. In contrast, S showed diverse responses to annual changes in temperature and precipitation between climate regimes. Stabilization of labile litter fractions increased with temperature only in boreal and sub-alpine sites, while it decreased with increasing precipitation only in sub-alpine and alpine sites. Environmental factors such as soil pH, soil C/N, litter C/N, and plant diversity that are associated with long-term climate variation modulate the response of k and S. This highlights the importance of long-term climate in shaping the environmental conditions that influences the response of decomposition processes to climate change.


decomposition climate change temperature precipitation litter bag annual variability grassland tea bag index 



We thank the Research Council of Norway for funding this study as part of the FunCaB project (KLIMAFORSK Grant No. 244525) and Olaf Grolle Olsens legat for additional funding to I. Althuizen. J. Sarneel conducted the work within the Strategic theme Sustainability of Utrecht University, sub-theme Water, Climate, and Ecosystems, and was funded by the Swedish research council VR, and received a travel grant from the Stiftelsen Margit Althins Stipendie-fond. Richard J. Telford gave statistical guidance. Serge Farinas provided data on nitrogen availability and Francesca Jaroszynska on plant diversity. Linn Krüger, Pascale Michel, Ida Westman, Erik Herberg, Ruth de Groot and Tabea Galusser assisted in the field and laboratory. We also thank the land owners for permission to use their land.

Supplementary material

10021_2018_241_MOESM1_ESM.docx (148 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 149 kb)


  1. Aerts R. 2006. The freezer defrosting: global warming and litter decomposition rates in cold biomes. J Ecol 94:713–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres E, Steltzer H, Berg S, Wall DH. 2009. Soil biota accelerate decomposition in high-elevation forests by specializing in the breakdown of litter produced by the plant species above them. J Ecol 97:901–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker BR. 2011. lme4: linear mixed-effects models. Accessed Apr 2017.
  4. Berg B, Berg MP, Bottner P, Box E, Breymeyer A, Ca de Anta R, Couteaux M, Escudero A, Gallardo A, Kratz W, Madeira M, Mälkönen E, McClaugherty C, Meentemeyer V, Muñoz F, Piussi P, Remacle J, Vi de Santo A. 1993. Litter mass loss rates in pine forests of Europe and Eastern United States: some relationships with climate and litter quality. Biogeochemistry 20:127–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg B, Meentemeyer V. 2002. Litter quality in a north European transect versus carbon storage potential. Plant Soil 242:83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradford MA, Berg B, Maynard DS, Wieder WR, Wood SA. 2016. Understanding the dominant controls on litter decomposition. J Ecol 104:229–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Chambers JM, Trevor Hastie J. 1992. Linear models. Statistical models in S: Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole. Monterey: Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books & Software.Google Scholar
  9. Chapin IFS, Matson PA, Vitousek PM. 2011. Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. New York: Springer. pp 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Classen AT, Sundqvist MK, Henning JA, Newman GS, Moore JAM, Cregger MA, Moorhead LC, Patterson CM. 2015. Direct and indirect effects of climate change on soil microbial and soil microbial-plant interactions: What lies ahead? Ecosphere 6:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cornelissen JHC, Van Bodegom PM, Aerts R, Callaghan TV, Van Logtestijn RSP, Alatalo J, Chapin FS, Gerdol R, Gudmundsson J, Gwynn-Jones D, Hartley AE, Hik DS, Hofgaard A, Jónsdóttir IS, Karlsson S, Klein JA, Laundre J, Magnusson B, Michelsen A, Molau U, Onipchenko VG, Quested HM, Sandvik SM, Schmidt IK, Shaver GR, Solheim B, Soudzilovskaia NA, Stenström A, Tolvanen A, Totland Ø, Wada N, Welker JM, Zhao X, Team MOL. 2007. Global negative vegetation feedback to climate warming responses of leaf litter decomposition rates in cold biomes. Ecol Lett 10:619–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coûteaux MM, Sarmiento L, Bottner P, Acevedo D, Thiéry JM. 2002. Decomposition of standard plant material along an altitudinal transect (65–3968 m) in the tropical Andes. Soil Biol Biochem 34:69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crowther TW, Todd-Brown KEO, Rowe CW, Wieder WR, Carey JC, Machmuller MB, Snoek BL, Fang S, Zhou G, Allison SD, Blair JM, Bridgham SD, Burton AJ, Carrillo Y, Reich PB, Clark JS, Classen AT, Dijkstra FA, Elberling B, Emmett BA, Estiarte M, Frey SD, Guo J, Harte J, Jiang L, Johnson BR, Kroel-Dulay G, Larsen KS, Laudon H, Lavallee JM, Luo Y, Lupascu M, Ma LN, Marhan S, Michelsen A, Mohan J, Niu S, Pendall E, Penuelas J, Pfeifer-Meister L, Poll C, Reinsch S, Reynolds LL, Schmidt IK, Sistla S, Sokol NW, Templer PH, Treseder KK, Welker JM, Bradford MA. 2016. Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to warming. Nature 540:104–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davidson EA, Janssens IA. 2006. Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change. Nature 440:165–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Didion M, Repo A, Liski J, Forsius M, Bierbaumer M, Djukic I. 2016. Towards harmonizing leaf litter decomposition studies using standard tea bags—a field study and model application. Forests 7:167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Epstein HE, Burke IC, Lauenroth WK. 2002. Regional patterns of decomposition and primary production rates in the U.S. Great Plains. Ecology 83:320–7.Google Scholar
  17. Fariñas SA. 2011. How do changing climate variables impact alpine plant communities? Linking gradients of temperature, precipitation, and available soil nitrogen to plant growth and chemistry. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  18. Fremstad E. 1997. Vegetasjonstyper i Norge. NINA Temahefte NINA, p1–279.Google Scholar
  19. 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 6:751–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giblin AE, Laundre JA, Nadelhoffer KJ, Shaver RG. 1994. Measuring nutrient availability in arctic soils using ion exchange resins: a field test. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:1154–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. IPCC. 2013. Long-term climate change: Projections, commitments and irreversibility. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM, Eds. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. working group I contribution to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  23. Keuskamp JA, Dingemans BJJ, Lehtinen T, Sarneel JM, Hefting MM. 2013. Tea bag index: a novel approach to collect uniform decomposition data across ecosystems. Methods Ecol Evolut 4:1070–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klanderud K, Vandvik V, Goldberg D. 2015. The importance of biotic vs abiotic drivers of local plant community composition along regional bioclimatic gradients. PLoS ONE 10:e013020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCulley RL, Burke IC, Nelson JA, Lauenroth WK, Alan K, Knapp AK, Kelly EF. 2005. Regional patterns in carbon cycling across the Great Plains of North America. Ecosystems 8:106–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meineri E, Spindelböck J, Vandvik V. 2013. Seedling emergence responds to both seed source and recruitment site climates: a climate change experiment combining transplant and gradient approaches. Plant Ecol 2014:607–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murphy KL, Klopatek JM, Klopatek CC. 1998. The effects of litter quality and climate on decomposition along an elevational gradient. Ecol Appl 8:1061–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norwegian Meteorological Institute. 2010. Normal period 1961–1990. http// Accessed Jan 2010.
  29. Norwegian Meteorological Institute. 2016. Study period 2008–2016. http// Accessed Nov 2016.
  30. Portillo-Estrada M, Pihlatie M, Korhonen JFJ, Levula J, Frumau AKF, Ibrom A, Lembrechts JJ, Morillas L, Horváth L, Jones SK, Niinemets Ü. 2016. Climatic controls on leaf litter decomposition across European forests and grasslands revealed by reciprocal litter transplantation experiments. Biogeosciences 13:1621–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. R Core Team. 2017. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  32. Raich JW, Potter CS. 1995. Global patterns of carbon dioxide emissions from soils. Global Biogeochem Cycles 9:23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Raich JW, Schlesinger WH. 1992. The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration and its relationship to vegetation and climate. Tellus B Chem Phys Meteorol 44:81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robinson CH. 2002. Controls on decomposition and soil nitrogen availability at high latitudes. Plant Soil 242:65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rousk J, Brookes PC, Bååth E. 2010. The microbial PLFA composition as affected by pH in an arable soil. Soil Biol Biochem 42:516–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salinas N, Malhi Y, Meir P, Silman M, Roman Cuesta R, Huaman J, Salinas D, Huaman V, Gibaja A, Mamani M, Farfan F. 2011. The sensitivity of tropical leaf litter decomposition to temperature: results from a large-scale leaf translocation experiment along an elevation gradient in Peruvian forests. New Phytol 189:967–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sarneel JMJ, Veen GFC. 2017. Legacy effects of altered flooding regimes on decomposition in a boreal floodplain. Plant Soil 421:57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schuur EAG. 2001. The effect of water on decomposition dynamics in mesic to wet Hawaiian Montane forests. Ecosystems 4:259–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Six J, Conant RT, Paul EA, Paustian K. 2002. Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: implications for C-saturation of soils. Plant Soil 241:155–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Suh S, Lee E, Lee J. 2009. Temperature and moisture sensitivities of CO2 efflux from lowland and alpine meadow soils. J Plant Ecol 2:225–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tveito OE, Bjørdal I, Skjelvåg AO, Aune B. 2005. A GIS-based agro-ecological decision system based on gridded climatology. Meteorol Appl 12:57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Veen GF, Freschet GT, Ordonez A, Wardle DA. 2015. Litter quality and environmental controls of home-field advantage effects on litter decomposition. Oikos 124:187–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wan X, Huang Z, He Z, Yu Z, Wang M, Davis MR, Yang Y. 2015. Soil C:N ratio is the major determinant of soil microbial community structure in subtropical coniferous and broadleaf forest plantations. Plant Soil 387:103–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zak DR, Holmes WE, White DC, Peacock AD, Tilman D. 2003. Plant diversity, soil microbial communities, and ecosystem function: are there any links? Ecology 84:2042–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Inge H. J. Althuizen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hanna Lee
    • 2
  • Judith M. Sarneel
    • 3
    • 4
  • Vigdis Vandvik
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences and Bjerknes Centre for Climate ResearchUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Uni Research ClimateBjerknes Centre for Climate ResearchBergenNorway
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Environmental SciencesUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  4. 4.Ecology and Biodiversity Group and Plant Ecophysiology GroupUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations