Plant and Soil

, Volume 345, Issue 1–2, pp 353–364 | Cite as

Forest floor properties across sharp compositional boundaries separating trembling aspen and jack pine stands in the southern boreal forest

Regular Article


Jack pine and trembling aspen are two early-seral boreal tree species with contrasting nutrient cycling strategies. Both species may form adjacent mono-specific stands separated by sharp compositional boundaries. We hypothesized that such boundaries result in wider functional ecotones. Spatial transitions in humus forms, forest floor chemistry and microbial communities were assessed across 32 m long transects set perpendicular to sharp compositional boundaries separating four jack pine and aspen stands. Split moving window analysis (SMWA) and moving window regression analysis (MWRA) were used to locate functional boundaries and ecotones. We found a gradual transition from moder (aspen) to mor (jack pine) humus spanning 16 m across the compositional boundary. An abrupt increase in forest floor water content at 3 m within jack pine stands was possibly due to aspen roots foraging for water beyond the boundary. The functional boundary and associated ecotone for forest floor pH, C:N ratio, Mg and ammonification were skewed toward jack pine stands, likely the result of aspen leaf dispersal. Low nitrification rates throughout jack pine stands and up to 11 m into aspen stands suggested that jack pine roots might extend far within aspen stands and produce metabolites that suppress nitrification. SMWA performed on the multivariate dataset of microbial fatty acids (FAs) revealed three distinct forest floor microbial communities that were skewed toward jack pine stands. Pine-type communities were associated to fungal FAs, pine-type and transition-type communities to non-fungal eukaryotic FAs, and aspen-type communities to bacterial FAs. Taken collectively, our data delimit a 24 m wide functional ecotone straddling sharp compositional boundaries separating trembling aspen and jack pine stands. We conclude that the functional diversity of boreal landscapes, where adjacent mono-specific stands are prevalent, is related to the patchiness of the landscape.


Ecotone Forest floor Humus form Phospholipid fatty acids analysis Pinus banksiana Populus tremuloides Split moving window analysis 



We thank M. Dufresne for technical assistance, Dr. W. Parsons for statistical advice, and Dr. E. Bååth for his guidance on interpreting PLFA data. The project was funded by an NSERC Discovery Grant awarded to the corresponding author.


  1. Aerts R (2006) The freezer defrosting: global warming and litter decomposition rates in cold biomes. J Ecol 94:713–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alban DH (1982) Effects of nutrient accumulation by aspen, spruce, and pine on soil properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J 46:853–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austr Ecol 26:32–46Google Scholar
  4. Anderson MJ (2004) DISTLM v.5: a FORTRAN computer program to calculate a distance-based Multivariate analysis for a linear model. Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson JPE, Domsch KH (1978) A physiological method for the quantitative measurement of microbial biomass in soils. Soil Biol Biochem 10:215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergeron Y, Lefort P, Gauthier S, Kafka V and Flannigan M (2003) Le régime de feux de la forêt mixte et boréale de l’Ouest du Québec. Chaire en aménagement forestier durable – 5e note de recherche, Université du Québec en Abitibi-TemiscamingueGoogle Scholar
  7. Bockheim JG, Jepsen EA, Heisey DM (1991) Nutrient dynamics in decomposing leaf litter of four tree species on a sandy soil in northwestern Wisconsin. Can J For Res 21:803–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooke RC, Whipps JM (1993) Ecophysiology of fungi. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK, p 337Google Scholar
  9. Cornelius JM, Reynolds JF (1991) On determining the statistical significance of discontinuities within ordered ecological data. Ecology 72:2057–2070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coûteaux MM, Bottner P, Berg B (1995) Litter decomposition, climate and litter quality. Trends Ecol Evol 10:63–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Environment Canada (2008) National climate data and information archive.
  12. Ferrari JB, Sugita S (1996) A spatially explicit model of leaf litter fall in hemlock-hardwood forests. Can J For Res 26:1905–1913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frostegård A, Bååth E (1996) The use of phospholipid fatty acid analysis to estimate bacterial and fungal biomass in soil. Biol Fertil Soils 22:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frostegård A, Tunlid A, Bååth E (1993a) Phospholipid fatty-acid composition, biomass, and activity of microbial communities from two soil types experimentally exposed to different heavy-metals. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:3605–3617PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Frostegård A, Bååth E, Tunlid A (1993b) Shifts in the structure of soil microbial communities in limed forests as revealed by phospholipid fatty-acid analysis. Soil Biol Biochem 25:723–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giri B, Giang PH, Kumari R, Prasad R, Varma A (2005) Microbial diversity in soils. In: Buscot F, Varma A (eds) Microorganisms in soils: roles in genesis and functions. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 19–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gower ST, Hunter A, Campbell J, Vogel J, Veldhuis H, Harden J, Trumbore S, Norman JM, Kucharik CJ (2000) Nutrient dynamics of the southern and northern BOREAS boreal forests. Ecoscience 7:481–490Google Scholar
  18. Grelewicz A, Plichta W (1985) Water absorption in samples of different types of forest humus. For Ecol Manag 10:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamel C, Hanson K, Selles F, Cruz AF, Lemke R, McConkey B, Zentner R (2006) Seasonal and long-term resource-related variations in soil microbial communities in wheat-based rotations of the Canadian prairie. Soil Biol Biochem 38:2104–2116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harwood JL, Russell NJ (1984) Lipids in plants and microbes. George Allen & Unwin, London, p 162Google Scholar
  21. Hennenberg KJ, Goetze D, Kouamé L, Orthmann B, Porembski S (2005) Border and ecotone detection by vegetation composition along forest-savanna transects in Ivory Coast. J Veg Sci 16:301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Högberg MN, Högberg P, Myrold DD (2007) Is microbial community composition in boreal forest soils determined by pH, C-to-N ratio, the trees, or all three? Oecologia 150:590–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jayasinghe B, Parkinson D (2008) Actinomycetes as antagonists of litter decomposer fungi. Appl Soil Ecol 38:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laganière J, Paré D, Bradley RL (2009) Linking the abundance of aspen with soil faunal communities and rates of belowground processes within single stands of mixed aspen-black spruce. Appl Soil Ecol 41:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laganière J, Angers DA, Paré D (2010) Carbon accumulation in agricultural soils after afforestation: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol 16:439–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Légaré S, Bergeron Y, Leduc A, Paré D (2001) Comparison of the understory vegetation in boreal forest types of southwest Quebec. Can J Bot 79:1019–1027Google Scholar
  27. Légaré S, Paré D, Bergeron Y (2005) Influence of aspen on forest floor properties in black spruce-dominated stands. Plant Soil 275:207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Longpré MH, Bergeron Y, Paré D, Béland M (1994) Effect of companion species on the growth of jack pine (Pinus banksiana). Can J For Res 24:1846–1853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Madan R, Pankhurst C, Hawke B, Smith S (2002) Use of fatty acids for identification of AM fungi and estimation of the biomass of AM spores in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 34:125–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matthies C, Erhard HP, Drake HL (1997) Effects of pH on the comparative culturability of fungi and bacteria from acidic and less acidic forest soils. J Basic Microbiol 37:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Müller PE (1889) Recherches sur les formes naturelles de l’humus et leur influence sur la végétation et le sol. Ann Sci Agron Fr Étrang 6:85–423Google Scholar
  32. Mulvaney RL (1996) Nitrogen–inorganic forms. In: Sparks DL, Page AKL, Helmke PA, Soltanpour PN, Tabatabai MA, Johnston CT, Summer ME (eds) Methods of soil analysis, Part 3– chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 1123–1184Google Scholar
  33. Paavolainen L, Kitunen V, Smolander A (1998) Inhibition of nitrification in forest soil by monoterpenes. Plant Soil 205:147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paul EA, Clark FE (1996) Soil microbiology and biochemistry. Academic, San Diego, 340Google Scholar
  35. Ponge JF (2003) Humus forms in terrestrial ecosystems: a framework to biodiversity. Soil Biol Biochem 35:935–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ratledge C, Wilkinson SG (1988) Microbial lipids. Academic, London, 963Google Scholar
  37. Rousk J, Brookes PC, Bååth E (2009) Contrasting soil pH effects on fungal and bacterial growth suggest functional redundancy in carbon mineralization. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:1589–1596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rousk J, Brookes PC, Bååth E (2010) Investigating the mechanisms for the opposing pH relationships of fungal and bacterial growth in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 42:926–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Royer-Tardif S, Bradley RL, Parsons WFJ (2010) Evidence that plant diversity and site productivity confer stability to forest floor microbial biomass. Soil Biol Biochem 42:813–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sevink J, Imeson AC, Verstraten JM (1989) Humus form development and hillslope runoff, and the effects of fire and management, under Mediterranean forest in NE-Spain. Catena 16:461–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Soil Classification Working Group (1998) The Canadian System Of Soil Classification, 3rd Edn. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Publication 1646. Pp. 187Google Scholar
  42. Sparks DL (1999) Bioavailability of soil potassium. In: Sumner ME (ed) Handbook of soil science. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  43. Ste-Marie C, Paré D (1999) Soil, pH and N availability effects on net nitrification in the forest floors of a range of boreal forest stands. Soil Biol Biochem 31:1579–1589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ste-Marie C, Paré D, Gagnon D (2007) The contrasting effects of aspen and jack pine on soil nutritional properties depend on parent material. Ecosystems 10:1299–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Strong WL, La Roi GHL (1983) Root-system morphology of common boreal forest trees in Alberta, Canada. Can J For Res 13:1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tate RL III (1995) Soil microbiology. Wiley, NY, p 398Google Scholar
  47. Taylor BR, Parkinson D (1988) Aspen and pine leaf litter decomposition in laboratory microcosms.2. Interactions of temperature and moisture level. Can J Bot 66:1966–1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Walker S, Wilson JB, Steel JB, Rapson GL, Smith B, King WM, Cottam YH (2003) Properties of ecotones: evidence from five ecotones objectively determined from a coastal vegetation gradient. J Veg Sci 14:579–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wardle DA (2002) Communities and ecosystems: linking the aboveground and belowground components. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 393Google Scholar
  50. Webster R (1973) Automatic soil-boundary location from transect data. J Intern Ass Math Geol 5:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Webster R (1978) Optimally partitioning soil transects. J Soil Sci 29:388–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. White CS (1991) The Role of monoterpenes in soil-nitrogen cycling processes in ponderosa pine - results from laboratory bioassays and field studies. Biogeochemistry 12:43–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zelles L (1999) Fatty acid patterns of phospholipids and lipopolysaccharides in the characterisation of microbial communities in soil: a review. Biol Fertil Soils 29:111–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de biologieUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada

Personalised recommendations