Advertisement

Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems

, Volume 87, Issue 2, pp 249–260 | Cite as

Green foliage decomposition in tree plantations on degraded, irrigated croplands in Uzbekistan, Central Asia

  • J. P. A. LamersEmail author
  • C. Martius
  • A. Khamzina
  • M. Matkarimova
  • D. Djumaeva
  • R. Eshchanov
Research Article

Abstract

Afforestation is a prospective strategy to improve soil fertility of salt-affected, irrigated croplands in Central Asia. The effect of macro- and mesofauna and microflora on the decomposition of tree leaves, collected ca. 2 weeks before natural fall, was monitored during 367 days. The three-year-old tree plantations consisted of Elaeagnus angustifolia L., Ulmus pumila L., and Populus euphratica Oliv. The leaf decay rate was determined in 25 × 25 cm sized polyester litterbags with mesh sizes of 10,000 μm (coarse), 250 μm (medium), and 20 μm (fine). Decomposition in the coarse litterbags, allowing access by the entire decomposer community, was highest in P. euphratica at 61% weight loss after 367 days. In the same period, the weight loss in E. angustifolia was 51% and in U. pumila 52%. Combined correlation and multiple regression analyses revealed that decomposability was determined by mesh size, initial C/N ratio, crude fiber-to-N (CF/N) ratio, leaf area, and specific leaf area. A high correlation existed between traits impacting decomposition by the entire decomposer population and the digestibility of leaves by animals as measured in the laboratory (the in vitro digestibility). Initial leaf N (34 g N kg−1 DM) content was highest in E. angustifolia, followed by 23 g N kg−1 DM in U. pumila and 22 g N kg−1 DM in P. euphratica. The C/N ratio followed the order of P. euphratica (21.8) > U. pumila (19.4) > E. angustifolia (13.1). The CF/N ratio followed the order P. euphratica (5.2) > E. angustifolia (3.9) > U. pumila (2.9). Despite a lower decay rate and a higher N content remaining in leaves after 367 days in comparison to both other species, E. angustifolia had the highest potential for soil bio-amelioration. This was due to its foliage production (6 t ha−1 on average), which was about 2.5 times higher than that of the other species, giving a total leaf N loss of about 97 kg N ha−1 in coarse mesh bags. The N loss from U. pumila and P. euphratica leaves amounted to 33 and 23 kg N ha−1, respectively. The potential of leaf decomposition for supplementing soil N in the region depends on the decay rate, the initial leaf N content, the annual leaf biomass production, and differences between N contents over the course of the decomposition period. These can be additional criteria for selecting tree species suitable for afforestation of the degraded, irrigated croplands in Central Asia.

Keywords

Decomposition rate Digestibility Leaf nitrogen content Litterbag technique Multipurpose trees Specific leaf area Tree foliage 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF; project number 0339970A) and the Ministry for Schools, Science and Research of the State of Northrhine-Westfalia funded this study. The research was carried out within the framework of the ZEF/UNESCO landscape restructuring project (www.uni-bonn.de/khorezm). The authors thank Ms. Margaret Shanafield for the English corrections and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

References

  1. Cornelissen JHC, Quested HM, Gwynn-Jones D, Van Logtestijn RSP, De Beus MAH, Kondratchuk A, Callaghan TV, Aerts R (2004) Leaf digestibility and litter decomposability are related in a wide range of subarctic plant species and types. Funct Ecol 18:779–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Domenach A-M, Moiroud A, Jocteur-Monrozier L (1994) Leaf carbon and nitrogen constituents of some actinorhizal tree species. Soil Biol Biochem 5:649–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fielding JL, Gilbert GN (2000) Understanding social statistics. Sage Publications, London, p 329Google Scholar
  4. Höfer H, Hanagarth W, Beck L, Garcia M, Martius C, Franklin E, Römbke J (2001) Structure and function of the soil fauna in Amazonian anthropogenic and natural ecosystems. Eur J Soil Biol 37:229–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Khamzina A, Lamers JPA, Worbes M, Botman E, Vlek PLG (2006) Assessing the potential of trees for afforestation of degraded landscapes in the Aral Sea Basin of Uzbekistan. Agrofor Syst 66(2):129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Khamzina A, Lamers JPA, Vlek PLG (2008) Tree establishment under deficit irrigation on degraded agricultural land in the lower Amu Darya River region, Aral Sea Basin. For Eco Manage 255(1):168–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Khamzina A, Lamers JPA, Vlek PLG (2009a) Nitrogen fixation by Elaeagnus angustifolia L. in the reclamation of degraded croplands of Central Asia. Tree Physiol 29(6):799–808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Khamzina A, Sommer R, Lamers JPA, Vlek PLG (2009b) Transpiration and early growth of tree plantations established on degraded cropland over shallow saline groundwater table in northwest Uzbekistan. Agric Forest Meteorol 149:1865–1874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kumar BM (2008) Litter dynamics of plantation and agroforestry systems of the tropics—a review of observations and methods, pp 187–216. In: Batish DR, Kohli RK, Jose S, Singh HP (eds) Ecological basis of agroforestry. CRC press, Taylor & Francis, London, 382 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Kurzatkowski D, Martius C, Höfer H, Garcia M, Förster B, Beck B, Vlek PLG (2004) Litter decomposition, microbial biomass and activity of soil organisms in three agroforestry sites in central Amazonia. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 69:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lal R (2007) Soil and environment degradation in Central Asia. In: Lal R (ed) Climate change and terrestrial carbon sequestration in Central Asia. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 127–137Google Scholar
  12. Lavelle P, Spain AV (2001) Soil ecology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 654 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Llinares F, Munos-Mingarro D, Pozuelo JM, Ramos B, Bermudez de Castro F (1994) Microbial inhibition and nitrification potential in soils incubated with Elaeagnus angustifolia L. Geomicrobiol J 11:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martius C, Höfer H, Garcia MVB, Römbke J, Hanagarth W (2004) Litter fall, litter stocks and decomposition rates in rain forest and agroforestry sites in central Amazonia. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 68:137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Massucati LFP (2006) Monitoring of soil macrofauna and soil moisture in a cotton field: an assessment of the ecological potential in irrigated agriculture in Central Asia (Khorezm province, Uzbekistan). Faculty of Agriculture, University of Bonn. http://www.zef.de/fileadmin/webfiles/downloads/projects/khorezm/downloads/Publications/Master_Theses/Massucati-MSc.pdf
  16. Menke KH, Steingass H (1987) Schätzung des energetischen Futterwerts aus der in vitro mit Pansensaft bestimmten Gasbildung und der chemischen Analyse. II. Regressionsgleichungen. Übersicht Tierernährung 15:59–93Google Scholar
  17. Menke KH, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D, Schneider W (1979) The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feeding stuffs from gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. J Agric Sci (Cam) 93:217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moro MJ, Domingo F (2000) Litter decomposition in four woody species in a Mediterranean climate: Weight Loss, N and P Dynamics. Ann Bot 86:1065–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Naumann K, Bassler R, Seibold R, Barth K (1983) Methodenbuch Band III. Die chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln. Naumann, Neudamm, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  20. Protasov PV (1977) Methods of agro-chemical analyses of soils and plants. All-Union Research Institute of Cotton Science, TashkentGoogle Scholar
  21. Royer TV, Monaghan MT, Minshall GW (1999) Processing of native and exotic leaf litter in two Idaho (U.S.A.) streams. Hydrobiologia 400:123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Seneviratne G (2000) Litter quality and nitrogen release in tropical agriculture: a synthesis. Biol Fertil Soils 31:60–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tian G, Kang BT, Brussaard L (1992) Biological effects of plant residues with contrasting chemical compositions under humid tropical conditions: decomposition and nutrient release. Soil Biol Biochem 24(10):1051–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tian G, Kang BT, Brussaard L (1993) Mulching effect of plant residues with chemically contrasting compositions on maize growth and nutrients accumulation. Plant Soil 153:179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tian G, Brussaard L, Kang BT (1995) An index for assessing the quality of plant residues and evaluating their effects on soil and crop in the (sub-) humid tropics. Appl Soil Eco 2:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. UNESCO-WWAP (2006) Water a shared responsibility. The United Nations world water development report 2. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001454/145405E.pdf. 584 pp

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. P. A. Lamers
    • 1
    Email author
  • C. Martius
    • 3
  • A. Khamzina
    • 1
  • M. Matkarimova
    • 2
  • D. Djumaeva
    • 2
  • R. Eshchanov
    • 4
  1. 1.ZEF (Center for Development Research)University of BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.ZEF UNESCO ProjectUrgench State UniversityUrgenchKhorezm
  3. 3.Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI)São José dos CamposBrazil
  4. 4.State University of UrgenchKhorezmUzbekistan

Personalised recommendations