Advertisement

Biogeochemistry

, Volume 100, Issue 1–3, pp 57–73 | Cite as

Factors influencing limit values for pine needle litter decomposition: a synthesis for boreal and temperate pine forest systems

  • B. Berg
  • M. P. Davey
  • A. De Marco
  • B. Emmett
  • M. Faituri
  • S. E. Hobbie
  • M.-B. Johansson
  • C. Liu
  • C. McClaugherty
  • L. Norell
  • F. A. Rutigliano
  • L. Vesterdal
  • A. Virzo De Santo
Article

Abstract

We synthesized available data for decomposition of pine (Pinus) needle litter in pine forests to determine the litter chemical characteristics and climate factors that explained variation in the limit value, i.e. the level of accumulated mass loss at which the decomposition process either continues at a very low rate or possibly stops. Our data base included 56 separate studies on decomposition of pine needle litter, spanning Scots pine, lodgepole pine, Aleppo pine, stone pine and white pine, mainly incubated at the site of collection. Studies had 5 to 19 samplings, on average 10, and the decomposition was followed to a mass loss ranging from 47 to 83%, on average 67%. The periods from 3.0 to 5.4 years, on average 3.9 years, were of sufficient duration to allow estimates of limit values of decomposition. We used a linear mixed model with regression effects to relate limit values to potential explanatory variables, namely the sites’ long-term mean annual temperature (MAT) and mean annual precipitation (MAP) and to substrate-chemistry factors. Regarding the latter, we explored two models; one that included initial concentrations of water solubles, lignin, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, and Mn and one that included only lignin, N, Ca, and Mn to focus on those nutrients known to influence lignin degradation. Using backward elimination significant explanatory variables were determined. For litter decomposed in its site of origin we found the limit value to depend mainly on the initial concentration of Mn, with higher Mn concentrations resulting in higher accumulated mass loss. Thus, litter with higher Mn reached a higher limit value and left a smaller stable fraction. This is likely due to the fact that Mn is an essential component of ligninolytic enzymes important for degrading litter in the later stages of decomposition. Manganese has received little attention in decomposition studies to date. Given its significance in this synthesis, the role of Mn in influencing variation in the late stages of decomposition among ecosystems and among litters of other genera besides Pinus deserves further attention.

Keywords

Litter decomposition Limit values Maximum decomposition Nitrogen Manganese Calcium 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was carried out when Björn Berg was a guest scientist at the Department of Forest Ecology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland and Dipartimento Biologia Strutturale e Funzionale, Università Federico II, Napoli, Italy. The work by Prof R. C. Björn Berg has been financed by the program “Incentivazione alla mobilità di studiosi stranieri e italiani residenti all’ estero”. We are most grateful to two anonymous referees for very constructive comments.

References

  1. Berg B (1998) A maximum limit for foliar litter decomposition—a synthesis of data from forest systems. Reports from Departments of Forest Ecology and Forest Soils, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Report 77, 158 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg B (2000a) Litter decomposition and organic matter turnover in northern forest soils. For Ecol Manage 133:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg B (2000b) Initial rates and limit values for decomposition of Scots pine and Norway spruce needle litter—a synthesis for N-fertilized forest stands. Can J For Res 30:122–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg B, Cortina J (1995) Nutrient dynamics in some leaf and needle litter types of different chemical composition in a Scots pine forest. Scand J For Res 10:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg B, Dise N (2004) Validating a new model for N sequestration in forest soil organic matter. Water Air Soil Pollut Focus 4:343–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg B, Ekbohm G (1991) Litter mass-loss rates and decomposition patterns in some needle and leaf litter types. Long-term decomposition in a Scots pine forest VII. Can J Bot 69:1449–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg B, Lundmark J-E (1985) Decomposition of needle and root litter in lodgepole pine and Scots pine monocultural systems. Research notes no. 53, Department of Forest Ecology and Forest Soils. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, 76 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Berg B, Lundmark JE (1987) Decomposition of needle litter in lodgepole pine and scots pine monocultures—a comparison. Scand J For Res 2:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berg B, McClaugherty C (2008) Plant litter. Decomposition. Humus formation. Carbon sequestration. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin, p 338Google Scholar
  10. Berg B, Meentemeyer V (2002) Litter quality in a north European transect versus carbon storage potential. Plant Soil 242:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berg B, Hannus K, Popoff T, Theander O (1982) Changes in organic-chemical components during decomposition. Long-term decomposition in a Scots pine forest I. Can J Bot 60:1310–1319Google Scholar
  12. Berg B, Booltink HGW, Breymeyer A, Ewertsson A, Gallardo A, Holm B, Johansson M-B, Koivuoja S, Meentemeyer V, Nyman P, Olofsson J, Pettersson A-S, Reurslag A, Staaf H, Staaf I, Uba L (1991) Data on needle litter decomposition and soil climate as well as site characteristics for some coniferous forest sites, 2nd edn. Section 2. Data on needle litter decomposition. Report no. 42, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Department of Ecology and Environmental ResearchGoogle Scholar
  13. Berg B, Berg M, Bottner P, Box E, Breymeyer A, Calvo de Anta R, Couteaux M, Gallardo A, Escudero A, Kratz W, Madeira M, Mälkönen E, Meentemeyer V, Muñoz F, Piussi P, Remacle J, Virzo De Santo A (1993) Litter mass loss in pine forests of Europe and Eastern United States as compared to actual evapotranspiration on a European scale. Biogeochemistry 20:127–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Berg B, Calvo de Anta R, Escudero A, Johansson M-B, Laskowski R, Madeira M, McClaugherty C, Meentemeyer V, Reurslag A, Virzo De Santo A (1995) The chemical composition of newly shed needle litter of different pine species and Scots pine in a climatic transect. Long-term decomposition in a Scots pine forest X. Can J Bot 73:1423–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Berg B, Ekbohm G, Johansson M-B, McClaugherty C, Rutigliano F, Virzo De Santo A (1996) Some foliar litter types have a maximum limit for decomposition—a synthesis of data from forest systems. Can J Bot 74:659–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Berg B, Johansson M-B, Lundmark J-E (1997) Site descriptions for forest sites—a compilation. Report 73, Department for Forest Ecology and Forest Soils, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 43 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. Berg B, Laskowski R, Virzo De Santo A (1999) Estimated N concentration in humus as based on initial N concentration in foliar litter—a synthesis. Can J Bot 77:1712–1722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Berg B, Johansson M-B, Meentemeyer V (2000) Litter decomposition in a transect of Norway spruce forests: substrate quality and climate control of mass-loss rates. Can J For Res 30:1136–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Berg B, McClaugherty C, Virzo De Santo A, Johnson D (2001) Humus build-up in boreal forests-effects of litter fall and its N concentration. Can J For Res 31:988–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Berg B, Steffen K, McClaugherty C (2007) Litter decomposition rates as dependent on litter Mn concentration. Biogeochemistry 85:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bethge PO, Rådeström R, Theander O (1971) Kvantitativ kolhydrat-bestämning—en detaljstudie. Communication from Swedish Forest Product Research Laboratory, 63B. Stockholm, 48 pp (In Swedish)Google Scholar
  22. Carreiro MM, Sinsabaugh RL, Repert DA, Parkhurst DF (2000) Microbial enzyme shifts explain litter decay responses to simulated nitrogen deposition. Ecology 81:2359–2365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Couteaux M-M, McTiernan K, Berg B, Szuberla D, Dardennes P (1998) Chemical composition and carbon mineralisation potential of Scots pine needles at different stages of decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem 30:583–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davey M, Berg B, Emmett B, Rowland P (2007) Controls of foliar litter decomposition and implications for C sequestration in oak woodlands. Can J Bot 85:16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Effland MJ (1977) Modified procedure to determine acid insoluble lignin in wood and pulp. Tech Assoc Pulp Pap Ind J 60(10):143–144Google Scholar
  26. Eriksson K-E, Blanchette RA, Ander P (1990) Microbial and enzymatic degradation of wood and wood components. Springer Series in Wood Science. Springer Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. Faituri MY (2002) Soil organic matter in Mediterranean and Scandinavian forest ecosystems and dynamics of nutrients and monomeric phenolic compounds. Silvestra 236:1–136Google Scholar
  28. Fogel R, Cromack K (1977) Effect of habitat and substrate quality on Douglas fir litter decomposition in western Oregon. Can J Bot 55:1632–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Graybill FA, Iyer HK (1994) Regression analysis: concepts and applications. Duxbury Press, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  30. Hatakka A (1994) Lignin-modifying enzymes from selected white-rot fungi: production and role in lignin degradation. FEMS Microbiol Rev 13:125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hatakka A (2001) Biodegradation of lignin. In: Hofrichter M, Steinbüchel A (eds) Lignin, humic substances and coal, vol 1. Wiley-VCH, Germany, pp 129–180Google Scholar
  32. Hatakka A, Buswell JA, Pirhonen TI, Uusi-Rauva AK (1983) Degradation of 14C-labelled lignins by white-rot fungi. In: Higuchi T, Chang H, Kirk TK (eds) Recent advances in lignin biodegradation research. Uni Publishers Co., Ltd., Tokyo, pp 176–187Google Scholar
  33. Hintikka V (1970) Studies on white-rot humus formed by higher fungi in forest soils. Communicationes Instituti Forestalis Fenniae 69:2Google Scholar
  34. Hobbie SE (2005) Contrasting effects of substrate and fertilizer nitrogen on the early stages of decomposition. Ecosystems 8:644–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hobbie SE (2008) Nitrogen effects on litter decomposition: a five-year experiment in eight temperate grassland and forest sites. Ecology 89:2633–2644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hofrichter M (2002) Review: lignin conversion by manganese peroxidase (MnP). Enzyme Microbiol Technol 30:454–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hofrichter M, Fritsche W (1997) Depolymerization of low-rank coal by extracellular fungal enzyme systems. III. In vitro depolymerization of coal humic acids by a crude preparation of manganese peroxidase from the white-rot fungus Nematoloma frowardii b19. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 47:566–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hofrichter M, Scheibner K, Schneegaß I, Ziegenhagen D, Fritsche W (1998) Mineralization of synthetic humic substances by manganese peroxidase from the white-rot fungus Nematoloma frowardii. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 49:584–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hofrichter M, Scheibner K, Bublitz F, Schneegaß I, Ziegenhagen D, Martens R, Fritsche W (1999a) Depolymerization of straw lignin by manganese peroxidase from Nematoloma frowardii is accompanied by release of carbon dioxide. Holzforschung 53:161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hofrichter M, Vares T, Scheibner K, Galkin S, Sipilä J, Hatakka A (1999b) Mineral-ization and solubilization of synthetic lignin by manganese peroxidases from Nematoloma frowardii and Phlebia radiata. J Biotechnol 67:217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hofrichter M, Lundell T, Hatakka A (2001) Conversion of milled pine wood by manganese peroxidase from Phlebia radiata. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:4588–4593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Howard PJA, Howard DM (1974) Microbial decomposition of tree and shrub leaf litter. Oikos 25:341–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Johansson M-B, Berg B, Meentemeyer V (1995) Litter mass-loss rates in late stages of decomposition in a climatic transect of pine forests. Long-term decomposition in a Scots pine forest. IX. Can J Bot 73:1509–1521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Keyser P, Kirk TK, Zeikus IG (1978) Ligninolytic enzyme of Phanerochaete chrysosporium: synthesized in the absence of lignin in response to nitrogen starvation. J Bacteriol 135:790–797Google Scholar
  45. Lousier JD, Parkinson D (1976) Litter decomposition in a cool temperate deciduous forest. Can J Bot 54:419–436Google Scholar
  46. Nömmik H, Vahtras K (1982) Retention and fixation of ammonium and ammonia in soils. In: Stevenson FJ (ed) Nitrogen in agricultural soils. Agronomy monographs, no. 22. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp 123–171Google Scholar
  47. Perez J, Jeffries TW (1992) Roles of manganese and organic acid chelators in regulating lignin degradation and biosynthesis of peroxidases by Phanerochaete chrysosporium. Appl Environ Microbiol 58:2402–2409Google Scholar
  48. Piccolo A, Spaccini R (1999) Increased sequestration of organic carbon in soil by hydrophobic protection. Naturwissenschaften 86:496–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. SAS Institute Inc. (2004) SAS/STAT®.9.1 user’s guide. Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  50. Steffen KT (2003) Degradation of recalcitrant biopolymers and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by litter-decomposing basidiomycetous fungi, vol 23, Dissertationes Biocentri Viikki Universitatis HelsingiensisGoogle Scholar
  51. Steffen KT, Hofrichter M, Hatakka A (2000) Mineralisation of 14C-labelled synthetic lignin and ligninolytic enzyme activities of litter-decomposing basidiomycetous fungi. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 54:819–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Steffen KT, Hatakka A, Hofrichter M (2002) Degradation of humic acids by the litter decomposing basidiomycete Collybia dryophila. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:3442–3448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stevenson FJ (1982) Humus chemistry. Genesis, composition, reactions. Wiley, New York, p 443Google Scholar
  54. Virzo De Santo A, De Marco A, Fierro A, Berg B, Rutigliano FA (2009) Factors regulating litter mass loss and lignin degradation in late decomposition stages. Plant Soil 318:217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wardle DA, Zachrisson O, Hörnberg G, Gallet C (1997) The influence of island area on ecosystem properties. Science 277:1296–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wieder RK, Lang GE (1982) A critique of the analytical methods used in examining decomposition data obtained from litter bags. Ecology 63:1636–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Berg
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. P. Davey
    • 3
  • A. De Marco
    • 1
  • B. Emmett
    • 4
  • M. Faituri
    • 5
  • S. E. Hobbie
    • 6
  • M.-B. Johansson
    • 7
  • C. Liu
    • 8
  • C. McClaugherty
    • 9
  • L. Norell
    • 10
  • F. A. Rutigliano
    • 11
  • L. Vesterdal
    • 12
  • A. Virzo De Santo
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento Biologia Strutturale e FunzionaleComplesso UniversitarioNapoliItaly
  2. 2.Department of Forest EcologyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  4. 4.Centre for Ecology and HydrologyBangor, GwyneddUK
  5. 5.Department of Soils and WaterOmar AlMukhtar UniversityElbeidaLibya
  6. 6.Department of Ecology, Evolution and BehaviorUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  7. 7.University of GävleGävleSweden
  8. 8.Department of Landscape Science and Engineering, College of Agriculture and BiologyShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  9. 9.Department of BiologyMount Union CollegeAllianceUSA
  10. 10.Unit of Applied Statistics and Mathematics, SLUUppsalaSweden
  11. 11.Dipartimento di Scienze AmbientaliSeconda Università degli Studi di NapoliCasertaItaly
  12. 12.Forest & Landscape DenmarkUniversity of CopenhagenHørsholmDenmark

Personalised recommendations