Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 185, Issue 11, pp 8943–8955 | Cite as

Humus characteristics and seasonal changes of soil arthropod communities in a natural sessile oak (Quercus petraea L.) stand and adjacent Austrian pine (Pinus nigra Arnold) plantation

Article

Abstract

In order to assess the effects of conversion of natural stands into plantations, soil invertebrate micro- and macroarthropod communities were evaluated for their abundance and richness in a sessile oak (SO; Quercus petraea L.) stand and adjacent Austrian pine (AP; Pinus nigra Arnold) plantation. Sites were sampled four times a year in 3-month intervals from May 2009 to February 2010. Humus characteristics such as total mass; carbon, lignin, and cellulose contents; and C/N ratio were significantly different between SO and AP. Statistically significant differences were detected on soil pH, carbon and nitrogen contents, and electrical conductivity between the two sites. The number of microarthropods was higher in AP than in the SO site. The annual mean abundance values of microarthropods in a square meter were 67,763 in AP and 50,542 in SO, and the annual mean abundance values of macroarthropods were 921 m−2 in AP and 427 m−2 in SO. Among the soil microarthropods, Acari and Collembola were the dominant groups. Shannon’s diversity index was more affected by evenness than species number despite the species diversity (H′) of soil arthropods being generally higher in the SO stand. The abundance of microarthropods showed clear seasonal trends depending upon the humidity of the soil.

Keywords

Humus forms Invertebrate communities Natural stand Plantation Soil faunal diversity 

References

  1. Akburak, S., Oral, H. V., Ozdemir, E., & Makineci, E. (2013). Temporal variations of biomass, carbon and nitrogen of roots under different tree species. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 28, 8–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benckiser, G., (1997). Fauna in soil ecosystems: recycling processes, nutrient fluxes, and agricultural production. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  3. Binkley, D., & Giardina, C. (1998). Why do tree species affect soils? The warp and woof of tree–soil interactions. Biogeochemistry, 42, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bird, S. B., Coulson, R. N., & Fisher, R. F. (2004). Changes in soil and litter arthropod abundance following tree harvesting and site preparation in a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantation. Forest Ecology and Management, 202, 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blake, G.R. & Hartge, K.H., (1986). Bulk density and particle density. In Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis. SSSA Book Series 5, Madison, pp. 363–381.Google Scholar
  6. Boulton, A. M., & Amberman, K. D. (2006). How ant nests increase soil biota richness and abundance: a field experiment. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15, 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Çakır, M., & Makineci, E. (2009). Toprak mikro-eklembacaklılarının fonksiyonel yapıları ve ölü örtü ayrışmasına etkileri-Belgrad ormanı örneği. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 1, 135–140.Google Scholar
  8. Cassagne, N., Bal-Serin, M. C., Gers, C., & Gauquelin, T. (2004). Changes in humus properties and Collembolan communities following the replanting of beech forests with spruce. Pedobiologia, 48, 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coleman, D. C., Crossley, D. & Hendrix, P. F., (2004). Fundamentals of soil ecology. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  10. David, J. F., & Gillon, D. (2002). Annual feeding rate of the millipede Glomeris marginata on Holm oak (Quercus ilex) leaf litter under Mediterranean conditions. Pedobiologia, 46, 42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. David, J. F., Ponge, J. F., & Delecour, F. (1993). The saprophagous macrofauna of different types of humus in beech forests of the Ardenne (Belgium). Pedobiologia, 37, 49–56.Google Scholar
  12. Dindal, D. L. (1990). Soil biology guide. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Frouz, J., & Jilkova, V. (2008). The effect of ants on soil properties and processes (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News, 11, 191–199.Google Scholar
  14. Gillet, S., & Ponge, J. F. (2004). Are acid-tolerant Collembola able to colonise metal-polluted soil? Applied Soil Ecology, 26, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Güner, Ş. T., Özkan, K., Çömez, A., & Çelik, N. (2011). İç Anadolu Bölgesi'nde Anadolu Karaçamının (Pinus nigra subsp. pallasiana) Verimli Olabileceği Potansiyel Alanların Odunsu Gösterge Türleri. Ekoloji, 20, 51–58.Google Scholar
  16. Hasegawa, M., & Takeda, H. (1996). Carbon and nutrient dynamics in decomposing pine needle litter in relation to fungal and faunal abundances. Pedobiologia, 40, 171–184.Google Scholar
  17. Hill, M. O., & Gauch, H. (1980). Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Plant Ecology, 42, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Irmak, A., & Çepel, N. (1968). Belgrad Ormanı’nda seçilen birer kayın, meşe ve karaçam meşcerelerinde yıllık yaprak dökümü miktarı ve bu yolla toprağa verilen besin maddelerinin tespiti üzerine araştırmalar. İ.Ü. Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 2, 53–76.Google Scholar
  19. Joo, S. J., Yim, M. H., & Nakane, K. (2006). Contribution of microarthropods to the decomposition of needle litter in a Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica D. Don) plantation. Forest Ecology and Management, 234, 192–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaneko, N., McLean, M. A., & Parkinson, D. (1998). Do mites and Collembola affect pine litter fungal biomass and microbial respiration? Applied Soil Ecology, 9, 209–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krantz, G. W. (1978). A manual of acarology (2nd ed.). Corvallis: Oregon State University Bookstores.Google Scholar
  22. Lavelle, P. & Spain, A.V., (2001). Soil ecology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  23. Lawrence, K. L., & Wise, D. H. (2000). Spider predation on forest-floor Collembola and evidence for indirect effects on decomposition. Pedobiologia, 44, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loranger-Merciris, G., Bandyopadhyaya, I., Razaka, B., & Ponge, J. F. (2001). Does soil acidity explain altitudinal sequences in Collembolan communities? Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 33, 381–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lorenz, K., Preston, C. M., 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. European Journal of Forest Research, 123, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Murphy, P. (1962). Progress in soil zoology. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  27. Nardi, S., Concheri, G., & Dell’Agnola, G. (1996). Biological activity of humus. In A. Piccolo (Ed.), Humic substances in terrestrial ecosystems (pp. 364–406). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  28. Negri, I. (2004). Spatial distribution of Collembola in presence and absence of a predator. Pedobiologia, 48, 585–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Petersen, H., & Luxton, M. (1982). A comparative analysis of soil fauna populations and their role in decomposition processes. Oikos, 39, 288–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ponge, J. F. (2003). Humus forms in terrestrial ecosystems: a framework to biodiversity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 35, 935–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rhoades, J. D., (1996). Salinity: electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids. In Sparks, D. L. (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 3-chemical methods (pp. 417–435). Madison: Soil Science Society of America book series 5. American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
  32. Rowland, A., & Roberts, J. (1994). Lignin and cellulose fractionation in decomposition studies using acid–detergent fibre methods. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 25, 269–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Salamon, J. A., Scheu, S. & Schaefer, M. (2008). The collembola community of pure and mixed stands of beech (Fagus sylvatica) and spruce (Picea abies) of different age. Pedobiologia, 51, 385–396.Google Scholar
  34. Sanders, D., & van Veen, F. J. (2011). Ecosystem engineering and predation: the multi–trophic impact of two ant species. Journal of Animal Ecology, 80, 569–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schaefer, M., & Schauermann, J. (1990). The soil fauna of beech forests: comparison between a mull and a moder soil. Pedobiologia, 34, 299–314.Google Scholar
  36. Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  37. van Straalen, N. M. (1998). Evaluation of bioindicator systems derived from soil arthropod communities. Applied Soil Ecology, 9, 435–444.Google Scholar
  38. Vesterdal, L., Schmidt, I. K., Callesen, I., Nilsson, L. O., & Gundersen, P. (2008). Carbon and nitrogen in forest floor and mineral soil under six common European tree species. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wardle, D. A. (2002). Communities and ecosystems: linking the aboveground and belowground components. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Wiwatwitaya, D., & Takeda, H. (2005). Seasonal changes in soil arthropod abundance in the dry evergreen forest of north-east Thailand, with special reference to collembolan communities. Ecological Research, 20, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. WRB, (2006). IUSS Working Group. World reference base for soil resources 2006, 2nd ed. World Soil Resources Reports No. 103. FAO, Rome, p. 145.Google Scholar
  42. Zanella, A., Jabiol, B., Ponge, J. F., Sartori, G., De Waal, R., Van Delft, B., et al. (2009). Toward a European humus forms reference base. Studi Trentini di Scienzi Naturali, 85, 145–151.Google Scholar
  43. Zanella, A., Jabiol, B., Ponge, J. F., Sartori, G., De Waal, R., Van Delft, B., et al. (2011). A European morpho-functional classification of humus forms. Geoderma, 164, 138–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Forestry, Soil Science and Ecology DepartmentIstanbul UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations