Advertisement

Biogeochemistry

, Volume 128, Issue 1–2, pp 107–123 | Cite as

An integrated spectroscopic and wet chemical approach to investigate grass litter decomposition chemistry

  • Georgina A. McKee
  • Jennifer L. Soong
  • Francisco Caldéron
  • Thomas Borch
  • M. Francesca Cotrufo
Article

Abstract

The chemical transformations that occur during litter decomposition are key processes for soil organic matter formation and terrestrial biogeochemistry; yet we still lack complete understanding of these chemical processes. Thus, we monitored the chemical composition of Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem grass) litter residue over a 36 month decomposition experiment in a prairie ecosystem using: traditional wet chemical fractionation based upon digestibility, solid state 13C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. The goals of this study were to (1) determine the chemical changes occurring during A. gerardii litter decomposition, and (2) compare the information obtained from each method to assess agreement. Overall, we observed a 97 % mass loss of the original litter, through a two-stage decomposition process. In the first stage, within 12 months, non-structural, cellulose and hemicellulose fractions not encrusted in lignin were preferentially and rapidly lost, while the acid unhydrolyzable residue (AUR) and microbial components increased. During the second stage, 12–36 months, all wet chemical fraction masses decreased equivalently and slowly with time, and the AUR and the lignin-encrusted cellulose fractions decomposition rates were comparable to each other. Method comparisons revealed that wet chemical fractionation did not accurately follow the initial litter structures, particularly lignin, likely because of chemical transformations and accumulation of microbial biomass. FTIR and NMR were able to determine bulk structural characteristics, and aid in elucidating chemical transformations but lacked the ability to measure absolute quantities of structural groups. As a result, we warn from the sole use of wet chemical methods, and strongly encourage coupling them with spectroscopic methods. Our results overall support the traditional chemical model of selective preservation of lignin, but shows that this is limited to the early stages of decomposition, while lignin is not selectively preserved at subsequent stages. Our study also provides important evidence regarding the impact of chemically different litter structures on decomposition rates and pathways.

Keywords

Litter decomposition Cellulose Hemicellulose Lignin NMR FTIR Grass Big bluestem 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Konza Prairie LTER and EcoCore laboratories for their support and use of their facilities. The work was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF)—Division of Environmental Biology grant #0918482, the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program, the United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative postdoctoral fellowship grant # 2012-01330, and the Cotrufo-Hoppess fund for soil ecology research. The wet chemical work was carried out at the EcoCore analytical services facility at Colorado State University (http://ecocore.nrel.colostate.edu/) with the help of Dr Liping Qiu. A portion of the research was performed using EMSL, a DOE Office of Science User Facility sponsored by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research and located at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. We would like to thank the scientists at EMSL who assisted in running the NMR samples, particularly Dr. Sarah Burton.

Disclaimer

The use of trade, firm, or corporation names is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the United States Department of Agriculture or the Agricultural Research Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program.

Supplementary material

10533_2016_197_MOESM1_ESM.eps (288 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 1 Cellulose/Lignin (AUR) ratio plots. a. NMR integration ratio (C2, C3, C5 cellulose 67–80 ppm/methoxy of lignin 46–59 ppm) from 0–24 months, b. wet chemistry ratio for stage 1 0–12 months, and c. wet chemistry ratio for stage 2 12–24 months (EPS 289 kb)
10533_2016_197_MOESM2_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 16 kb)

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 68:2201–2208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adair EC, Parton WJ, Del Grosso SJ et al (2008) Simple three-pool model accurately describes patterns of long-term litter decomposition in diverse climates. Glob Chang Biol 14:2636–2660. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01674.x Google Scholar
  3. Allen SE (1989) Chemical analysis of ecological materials. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Banerjee S, Li D (1991) Interpreting multicomponent infrared spectra by derivative minimization. Appl Spectrosc 45:1047–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg B, McClaugherty C (2007) Plant litter: decomposition, humus formation, carbon sequestration. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg B, Staaf H (1980) Decomposition rate and chemical changes of Scots pine needle litter. II. Influence of chemical composition. Ecol Bull 32:373–390Google Scholar
  7. Bonanomi G, Incerti G, Giannino F et al (2013) Litter quality assessed by solid state 13C NMR spectroscopy predicts decay rate better than C/N and Lignin/N ratios. Soil Biol Biochem 56:40–48. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buxton DR, Russell JR (1988) Lignin constituents and cell-wall digestibility of grass and legume stems. Crop Sci 28:553–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calderón FJ, McCarty GW, Reeves JB (2006) Pyrolisis-MS and FT-IR analysis of fresh and decomposed dairy manure. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 76:14–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jaap.2005.06.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calderón F, Haddix M, Conant R et al (2013) Diffuse-reflectance Fourier-transform mid-infrared spectroscopy as a method of characterizing changes in soil organic matter. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77:1591–1600. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2013.04.0131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Casler MD, Jung HG (1999) Selection and evaluation of smooth bromegrass clones with divergent lignin or etherified ferulic acid concentration. Crop Sci 39:1866–1873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casler MD, Jung H-JG (2006) Relationships of fibre, lignin, and phenolics to in vitro fibre digestibility in three perennial grasses. Anim Feed Sci Technol 125:151–161. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.05.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cortez J, Demard JM, Bottner P, Jocteur Monrozier L (1996) Decomposition of mediterranean leaf litters: a microcosm experiment investigating relationships between decomposition rates and litter quality. Soil Biol Biochem 28:443–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cotrufo MF, Soong JL, Horton AJ et al (2015) Formation of soil organic matter via biochemical and physical pathways of litter mass loss. Nat Geosci 8:776–779. doi: 10.1038/ngeo2520 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coûteaux M-M, Bottner P, Berg B (1995) Litter decomposition, climate and litter quality. Tree 10:63–66Google Scholar
  16. Dann HM, Grant RJ, Van Amburgh ME, Van Soest PJ (2006) Lignin-carbohydrate linkages, lignin and the relationship with fiber digestibility. In: New York State College of Agriculture, and the Graduate School of Nutrition CU (ed) Proceedings of Cornell nutritive conference for feed manufacture, New York State College of Agriculture, and the Graduate School of Nutrition. Departments of Poultry Husbandry, Animal Husbandry, and Biochemistry and Nutrition, Cornell University, pp 87–98Google Scholar
  17. Davies LM, Harris PJ, Newman RH (2002) Molecular ordering of cellulose after extraction of polysaccharides from primary cell walls of Arabidopsis thaliana: a solid-state CP/MAS 13C NMR study. Carbohydr Res 337:587–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galletti GC, Reeves JB III, Bloomfield J, Vogt KA, Vogt DJ (1993) Analysis of leaf and fine root litter from a subtropical montane rain forest by pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass-spectrometry. J Anal Appl Pyrol 27:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goff BM, Murphy PT, Moore KJ (2012) Comparison of common lignin methods and modifications on forage and lignocellulosic biomass materials. J Sci Food Agric 92:751–758. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.4637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gorgulu ST, Dogan M, Severcan F (2007) The characterization and differentiation of higher plants by fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Appl Spectrosc 61:300–308. doi: 10.1366/000370207780220903 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haberhauer G, Gerzabek MH (1999) Drift and transmission FT-IR spectroscopy of forest soils: an approach to determine decomposition processes of forest litter. Vib Spectrosc 19:413–417. doi: 10.1016/S0924-2031(98)00046-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamadi Z, Steinberger Y, Kutiel P et al (2000) Decomposition of Avena sterilis litter under arid conditions. J Arid Environ 46:281–293. doi: 10.1006/jare.2000.0672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hedges JI, Keil RG (1995) Sedimentary organic matter preservation: an assessment and speculative synthesis. Mar Chem 49:81–115. doi: 10.1016/0304-4203(95)00008-F CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Himmelsbach DS, Barton FE II, Windham WR (1983) Comparison of carbohydrate, lignin, and protein ratios between grass species by cross polarization-magic angle spinning carbon-13 nuclear magnetic resonance. J Agric Food Chem 31:401–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hindrichsen IK, Kreuzer M, Madsen J, Bach Knudsen KE (2006) Fiber and lignin analysis in concentrate, forage, and feces: detergent versus enzymatic-chemical method. J Dairy Sci 89:2168–2176. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72287-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ishler V, Varga G (2001) Carbohydrate nutrition for lactating dairy cattle. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PAGoogle Scholar
  27. Jung HG, Vogel KP (1992) Lignification of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) and big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) plant parts during maturation and its effect on fibre degradability. J Sci Food Agric 59:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kelleher BP, Simpson MJ, Simpson AJ (2006) Assessing the fate and transformation of plant residues in the terrestrial environment using HR-MAS NMR spectroscopy. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 70:4080–4094. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2006.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klotzbücher T, Kaiser K, Guggenberger G et al (2011) A new conceptual model for the fate of lignin in decomposing plant litter. Ecology 92:1052–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knapp AK, Briggs JM, Hartnett DC, Collins SL (1998) Grassland dynamics: long-term ecological research in tallgrass prairie. The Long-term ecological research network series, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Knicker H, Hatcher PG (1997) Survival of protein in an organic-rich sediment: possible protection by encapsulation in organic matter. Naturwissenschaften 84:231–234. doi: 10.1007/s001140050384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kögel-Knabner I (2002) The macromolecular organic composition of plant and microbial residues as inputs to soil organic matter. Soil Biol Biochem 34:139–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kolodziejski W, Frye JS, Maclel GE (1982) Carbon-13 nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry with cross polarization and magic-angle spinning for analysis of Lodgepole pine wood. Anal Chem 54:1419–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lapierre C (1993) Application of new methods for the investigation of lignin structure. Forge cell wall structure and digestibility. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, pp 133–166Google Scholar
  35. Lewis NG, Razal RA, Dhara KP et al (1988) Incorporation of [2-13C] ferulic acid, a lignin precursor, into Leucaena leucocephala and its analysis by solid state 13C N.M.R spectroscopy. J Chem Soc, Chem Commun. doi: 10.1039/C39880001626 Google Scholar
  36. Lorenz K, Preston CM, Krumrei S, Feger K-H (2004) Decomposition of needle/leaf litter from Scots pine, black cherry, common oak and European beech at a conurbation forest site. Eur J For Res 123:177–188. doi: 10.1007/s10342-004-0025-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Madejová J, Kečkés J, Pálková H, Komadel P (2002) Identification of components in smectite/kaolinite mixtures. Clay Miner 37:377–388. doi: 10.1180/0009855023720042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mascarenhas M, Dighton J, Arbuckle GA (2000) Characterization of plant carbohydrates and changes in leaf carbohydrate chemistry due to chemical and enzymatic degradation measured by microscopic ATR FT-IR spectroscopy. Appl Spectrosc 54:681–686. doi: 10.1366/0003702001950166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nelson PN, Baldock JA (2005) Estimating the molecular composition of a diverse range of natural organic materials from solid-state 13C NMR and elemental analyses. Biogeochemistry 72:1–34. doi: 10.1007/s10533-004-0076-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nguyen TT, Janik LJ, Raupach M (1991) Diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier transform (DRIFT) spectroscopy in soil studies. Aust J Soil Res 29:49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nikonenko NA, Buslov DK, Sushko NI, Zhbankov RG (2005) Spectroscopic manifestation of stretching vibrations of glycosidic linkage in polysaccharides. J Mol Struct 752:20–24. doi: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2005.05.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nordén B, Berg B (1990) A non-destructive method (solid state 13C NMR) for determining organic chemical components of decomposing litter. Soil Biol Biochem 22:271–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Preston CM, Trofymow JA, Sayer BG, Niu J (1997) 13C nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy with cross-polarization and magic-angle spinning investigation of the proximate-analysis fractions used to assess litter quality in decomposition studies. Can J Bot 75:1601–1613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Preston CM, Nault JR, Trofymow JA (2009) Chemical changes during 6 years of decomposition of 11 litters in some Canadian sites. Part 2. 13C abundance, solid-state 13C NMR spectroscopy and the meaning of “Lignin”. Ecosystems 12:1078–1102. doi: 10.1007/sl0021-009-9267-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reeves JB, McCarty GW, Rutherford DW, Wershaw RL (2008) Mid-infrared diffuse reflectance spectroscopic examination of charred pine wood, bark, cellulose, and lignin: implications for the quantitative determination of charcoal in soils. Appl Spectrosc 62:182–189. doi: 10.1366/000370208783575618 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rovira P, Rovira R (2010) Fitting litter decomposition datasets to mathematical curves: towards a generalised exponential approach. Geoderma 155:329–343. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.11.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rowland AP, Roberts JD (1994) Lignin and cellulose fractionation in decomposition studies using acid-detergent fibre methods. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 25:269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rumpel C, Eusterhues K, Kögel-Knabner I (2004) Location and chemical composition of stabilized organic carbon in topsoil and subsoil horizons of two acid forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem 36:177–190. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2003.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sariyildiz T, Anderson JM (2003) Interactions between litter quality, decomposition and soil fertility: a laboratory study. Soil Biol Biochem 35:391–399. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(02)00290-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sjöberg G, Nilsson SI, Persson T, Karlsson P (2004) Degradation of hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin in decomposing spruce needle litter in relation to N. Soil Biol Biochem 36:1761–1768. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sluiter JB, Ruiz RO, Scarlata CJ et al (2010) Compositional analysis of lignocellulosic feedstocks. 1. Review and description of methods. J Agric Food Chem 58:9043–9053. doi: 10.1021/jf1008023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith BC (2011) Fundamentals of Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, 2nd edn. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  53. Socrates G (1994) Infrared characteristic group frequencies, 2nd edn. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  54. Soong JL, Calderón FJ, Betzen J, Cotrufo MF (2014a) Quantification and FTIR characterization of dissolved organic carbon and total dissolved nitrogen leached from litter: a comparison of methods across litter types. Plant Soil 385:125–137. doi: 10.1007/s11104-014-2232-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Soong JL, Reuss D, Pinney C et al (2014b) Design and operation of a continuous 13C and 15N labeling chamber for uniform or differential, metabolic and structural, plant isotope labeling. J Vis Exp 83:e51117. doi: 10.3791/51117 Google Scholar
  56. Soong JL, Parton W, Calderón F et al (2015) A new conceptual model on the fate and controls of fresh and pyrolized plant litter decomposition. Biogeochemistry 8:776–779. doi: 10.1007/s10533-015-0079-2 Google Scholar
  57. Soong JL, Vandegehuchte ML, Horton AJ et al (2016) Soil microarthropods support ecosystem productivity and soil C accrual: evidence from a litter decomposition study in the tallgrass prairie. Soil Biol Biochem 92:230–238. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.10.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Spence A, Simpson AJ, McNally DJ et al (2011) The degradation characteristics of microbial biomass in soil. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 75:2571–2581. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2011.03.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spielvogel S, Prietzel J, Kögel-Knabner I et al (2010) Lignin phenols and cutin- and suberin-derived aliphatic monomers as biomarkers for stand history. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 74:A983–A983Google Scholar
  60. Stewart D, Mcdougall GJ, Baty A (1995) Fourier-transform infrared microspectroscopy of anatomically different cells of flax (Linum usitatissimum) stems during development. J Agric Food Chem 43:1853–1858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Talbot JM, Yelle DJ, Nowick J, Treseder KK (2011) Litter decay rates are determined by lignin chemistry. Biogeochemistry 108:279–295. doi: 10.1007/s10533-011-9599-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Theerarattananoon K, Xu F, Wilson J et al (2012) Impact of pelleting and acid pretreatment on biomass structure and thermal properties of wheat straw, corn stover, blue bluestem, and sorghum stalk. Trans ASABE 55:1845–1858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tremblay L, Gagne JP (2002) Fast quantification of humic substances and organic matter by direct analysis of sediments using DRIFT spectroscopy. Anal Chem 74:2985–2993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Udén P, Robinson PH, Wiseman J (2005) Use of detergent system terminology and criteria for submission of manuscripts on new, or revised, analytical methods as well as descriptive information on feed analysis and/or variability. Anim Feed Sci Technol 118:181–186. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2004.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van Soest PJ, Wine RH (1967) Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. J Assoc Off Anal Chem 46:50–55Google Scholar
  66. Van Soest PJ, Wine RH (1968) Determination of lignin and cellulose in acid-detergent fiber with permanganate. J Assoc Off Anal Chem 51:780–785Google Scholar
  67. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vanderhart DL, Atalla RH (1984) Studies of microstructure in native celluloses using solid-state 13C NMR. Macromolecules 17:1465–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Whitbeck MR (1981) Second derivative infrared spectroscopy. Appl Spectrosc 35:93–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Xu F, Yu J, Tesso T et al (2013) Qualitative and quantitative analysis of lignocellulosic biomass using infrared techniques: a mini-review. Appl Energy 104:801–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhang K, Johnson L, Nelson R et al (2012) Chemical and elemental composition of big bluestem as affected by ecotype and planting location along the precipitation gradient of the Great Plains. Ind Crops Prod 40:210–218. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.03.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgina A. McKee
    • 1
  • Jennifer L. Soong
    • 2
    • 5
  • Francisco Caldéron
    • 3
  • Thomas Borch
    • 1
    • 4
  • M. Francesca Cotrufo
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Soil and Crop SciencesColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Natural Resource Ecology LaboratoryColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.Agricultural Research ServiceUnited States Department of AgricultureAkronUSA
  4. 4.Department of ChemistryColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  5. 5.Department of BiologyUniversity of AntwerpWilrijkBelgium

Personalised recommendations