Plant and Soil

, Volume 287, Issue 1–2, pp 257–266 | Cite as

Charcoal and shrubs modify soil processes in ponderosa pine forests of western Montana

Original Paper

Abstract

Low-elevation ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Doug. ex. laws) forests of western Montana are naturally fire maintained ecosystems. However, 80–140 years of fire-exclusion has led to the formation of dense, mixed stands of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menzesii (Mirbel) Franco), an understory co-dominated by graminoids and ericaceous shrubs, and low N availability. Ericaceous shrubs in particular have been found to influence soil processes in boreal ecosystems and potentially exacerbate N limiting conditions. In this set of studies, we investigated the influence of graminoid and ericoid litter chemistry on soil processes and evaluated the influence of charcoal as a sorbant of C compounds and depositional product of fire. A series of experiments were performed with two common understory plants of this ecosystem, elk sedge (Carex geyeri Boott) and kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng.), an ericaceous shrub. Charcoal (100 g m−2) and glycine (5 g m−2) were applied in factorial combination to intact litter microcosms of these species. Non-ionic resin capsules were used to monitor mobile C compounds and ionic resins were used to monitor net N mineralization and nitrification in-situ. Greenhouse studies revealed that the addition of glycine and charcoal leads to a significant increase in net nitrification in shrub litter microcosms, but not sedge litter microcosms, as measured by NO3 sorption to ionic resin capsules. Charcoal and glycine also resulted in a significant increase of anthrone reactive C (soluble hexose sugars, an index of bioavailable C) in shrub litter microcosms. Analysis of leaf litter leachate from these two plant communities indicated similar nutrient concentrations, but almost 20 times more phenolic compounds in shrub leaf leachates. Charcoal was shown to be extremely effective at sorbing phenols, removing over 80% of phenolic compounds from solution. These results suggest that charcoal deposition after fire may modify a nitrification interference mechanism by sorbing plant secondary metabolites. After time, charcoal loses its ability to sorb C compounds and ericaceous litter decomposition, and subsequent release of phenolics, may interfere with nitrification once again.

Keywords

Allelopathy Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Carex geyeri Ericoid Ponderosa pine Ionic resin Sedge 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Pete Grum and Jennifer MacKenzie for their assistance with this project, and three anonymous reviewers for useful comments and suggestions. This work was supported in part by the USDA McIntire-Stennis program at the University of Montana, College of Forestry and Conservation, and the Forest Experiment Station.

References

  1. Almendros G, Dorado J, Gonzalez-Vila FJ, Blanco MJ, Lankes U (2000) 13C NMR assessment of decomposition patterns during composting of forest and shrub biomass. Soil Biol Biochem 32:793–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arno SF, Allison-Bunnell S (2002) Flames in our forest: Disaster or Renewal? Island Press, Seattle, WA, p 228Google Scholar
  3. Arno SF, Smith HY, Krebs MA (1997) Old growth Ponderosa pine and Western larch of pre-1900 fires and fire exclusion. Intermountain Research Station, Forest service, USDA, Missoula, MTGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardgett RD, Mawdsley JL, Edwards S, Hobbs PJ, Rodwell JS, Davies WJ (1999) Plant species effects on soil biological properties of temperate upland grasslands. Funct Ecol 13:650–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett SW, Arno SF, Menakis JP (1997) Fire episodes in the inland Northwest (1540–1940) based on fire history data. Intermountain Research Station, Forest Service, USDA, Missoula, MTGoogle Scholar
  6. Berglund L, Zackrisson O, DeLuca TH (2004) Charcoal amendment of soils alters nitrogen mineralization patterns in Scots pine forests. Soil Biol Biochem 36:2067–2073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bever JD (1994) Feedback between plants and their soil communities in an old field community. Ecology 7:1965–1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bray RH, Kurtz LT (1945) Determination of total, organic and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Sci 59:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bremner JM, McCarty GW (1988) Effects of terpenoids on nitrification. Soil Sci Soc Amer J 52:1630–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choromanska U, DeLuca TH (2001) Prescribed fire alters the impact of wildfire on soil biochemical properties in a Ponderosa pine forest. Soil Sci Soc Amer J␣65:232–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Covington W, Sackett S (1986) Effect of periodic burning on soil nitrogen concentrations in Ponderosa Pine. Soil Sci Soc Amer J 50:452–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeLuca TH (1998) Relationship of 0.5 M K2SO4 extractable anthrone-reactive carbon to indices of microbial activity in forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem 30:1293–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeLuca TH, MacKenzie MD, Gundale MJ, Holben WH (2006) Wildfire produced charcoal directly influences nitrogen cycling in forest ecosystems. Soil Sci Soc Amer J 70:448–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeLuca TH, Nilsson M-C, Zackrisson O (2002) Nitrogen and phenol accumulation along a fire chronosequence in northern Sweden. Oecologia 133:206–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeLuca TH, Zouhar KL (2000) Effect of selection harvest and prescribed fire on the soil nitrogen status of ponderosa pine forests. For Ecol Manag 125:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hattenschwiler S, Vitousek PM (2000) The role of polyphenols in terrestrial nutrient cycling. TREE 15:238–243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones DL, Healey JR, Willet VB, Farrar JF, Hodge A (2005) Dissolved organic nitrogen uptake by plants-an important N uptake pathway? Soil Biol Biochem 37: 413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keech O, Caracaillet C, Nilsson M-C (2005) Adsorption of allelopathic compounds by wood-derived charcoal: the role of wood porosity. Plant Soil 272:291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kjønaas OJ (1999) In situ efficiency of ion exchange resins in studies of nitrogen transformation. Soil Sci Soc Amer J 63:399–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kronzucker HJ, Siddiqi MY, Glass ADM (1997) Conifer root discrimination against soil nitrate and the ecology of forest succession. Nature 385:59–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lambers H, Chapin FS, Pons TJ (1998) Plant physiological ecology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Lodhi MA (1977) The influence and comparison of individual forest trees on soil properties and possible inhibition of nitrification due to intact vegetation. Amer J Bot 64:260–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacKenzie MD, DeLuca TH, Sala A (2006) Fire exclusion and nitrogen mineralization in low elevation forests of western Montana. Soil Biol Biochem 38:952–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacKenzie MD, DeLuca TH, Sala A (2004) Forest structure and organic matter analysis along a fire chronosequence in the low elevation forests of western Montana. For Ecol Manag 203:331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCarty GW, Bremner JM (1989) Inhibition of nitrification in soil by heterocyclic nitrogen compounds. Biol Fert Soils 8:204–211Google Scholar
  26. Morse CC, Yevdokimov IV, DeLuca TH (2000) In situ extraction and analysis of rhizosphere carbon of native and invasive plant species. Comm Soil Sci Plant Anal 31:725–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mulvaney RL (1996) Nitrogen—inorganic forms. In: Sparks DL (Ed), Methods of soil analysis. Part 3: chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI pp 1390Google Scholar
  28. NCDC (2005) Climate data inventories-Montana Division 1.NOAAGoogle Scholar
  29. Newland JA, DeLuca TH (2000) Influence of fire on native nitrogen-fixing plants and soil nitrogen status in ponderosa pine—Douglas-fir forests in western Montana. Can J For Res 30:274–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nilsson M-C, Wardle DA (2005) Understory vegetation as a forest ecosystem driver: Evidence from the northern Swedish boreal forest. Front Ecol Environ 3:421–428Google Scholar
  31. Nilsson M-C, Zackrisson O, Sterner O, Wallstedt A (2000) Characterization of the differential interference effects of two boreal dwarf shrub species. Oecologia 123:122–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nimlos TJ (1986) Soils of Lubrecht experiment forest. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, Missoula, MT, 36 ppGoogle Scholar
  33. Persson P, Högberg P, Ekblad A, Högberg MN, Nordgren A, Nasholm T (2003) Nitrogen acquisition from inorganic and organic sources by boreal plants in the field. Oecologia 137:252–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Piccolo A, Spaccini R, Haberhauer G, Gerzabek MH (1999) Increased sequestration of organic carbon in soil by hydrophobic protection. Naturwissenschaften 86:496–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pietikainen J, Hiukka R, Fritzem H (2000a) Does short-term heating of forest humus change its properties as a substrate for microbes? Soil Biol Biochem 32:277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pietikainen J, Kiikkila O, Fritze H (2000b) Charcoal as a habitat for microbes and its effect on the microbial community of the underlying humus. Oikos 89:231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schimel JP, Cates RG, Ruess R (1998) The role of balsam poplar secondary chemicals in controlling soil nutrient dynamics through succession in the Alaskan taiga. Biogeochemistry 42:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smithwick EAH, Turner MG, Mack MC, Chapin FS III (2005) Post-fire N cycling in Northern conifer forests affected by sever, stand replacing wildfire. Ecosystems 8:163–181Google Scholar
  39. Souto XC, Chiapusio G, Pellisser F (2000) Relationships between phenolics and soil microorganisms in spruce forests: Significance for natural regeneration. J Chem Ecol 26:2025–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stern JL, Hagerman AE, Steinberg PD, Winter FC, Estes JA (1996) A new assay for quantifying brown algal phlorotannis and comparison to previous methods. J␣Chem Ecol 22:1273–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology: Their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 504Google Scholar
  42. Vitousek PM, Howarth RW (1991) Nitrogen limitations on land and sea: How can it occur? Biogeochemistry 13:87–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wardle DA (2002) Communities and ecosystems: Linking the aboveground and belowground components. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  44. Wardle DA, Nilsson M, Gallet C, Zackrisson O (1998a) An ecosystem-level perspective of allelopathy. Biol Rev 73:305–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wardle DA, Zackrisson O, Nilsson M (1998b) The charcoal effect in Boreal forests: mechanisms and ecological consequences. Oecologia 115:419–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. White CS (1994) Monoterpenes: Their effects on ecosystem nutrient cycling. J Chem Ecol 20:1381–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilkinson L (1999) Systat 9.0 Statistics. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, p 1196Google Scholar
  48. Zackrisson O, Nilsson M, Wardle DA (1996) Key ecological function of charcoal from wildfire in the Boreal forest. Oikos 77:10–19Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Science, College of Forestry and ConservationThe University of MontanaMissoulaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Renewable ResourcesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations