Slow decomposition of very fine roots and some factors controlling the process: a 4-year experiment in four temperate tree species
- 915 Downloads
Background and aims
Despite our growing appreciation of the large contribution made by fine roots to soil organic carbon pool and nutrient cycling, their decomposition dynamics still remain poorly quantified.
In a field experiment, we conducted a 4-year litterbag study on different root size classes (< 0.5 and 0.5–2.0 mm) in four temperate tree species.
Very fine roots (< 0.5 mm) decomposed more slowly than 0.5–2.0 mm roots in the four species roots studied in both the initial and later phases of root decomposition. Of all the root tissue chemistry we measured, decomposition rates correlated best with acid-unhydrolyzable fraction concentrations. However, no correlation was found for any of the nutrient related root quality parameters and decomposition rates. In contrast to mass loss, root net N released declined more rapidly in very fine roots (< 0.5 mm) than in 0.5–2.0 mm roots. Additionally, much of nitrogen was released in the final stages of decomposition, during which the recalcitrant carbon compounds were decomposed.
We conclude that the quality of carbon in root detritus and not the concentration of initial nutrients control its decomposition dynamics in a relatively nutrient-rich soil in northeastern China. These patterns can be explained by lower easily accessible labile carbon and higher recalcitrant carbon fractions in very fine roots (< 0.5 mm) than in 0.5–2.0 mm roots, at least in the four species we studied.
KeywordsFine root decomposition Root diameter Carbon quality Litter quality Nitrogen dynamics
The authors thank Guohua Song, Quanbo Wang for assistance in the field. We also thank Dr. Björn Berg for suggestions that improved earlier versions of this work. The funding for this research was supported by National Basic Research Program (973 Program) (2010CB951301) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31270494 and 31070350).
- Ågren GI, Andersson FO (2012) Terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Ågren GI, Bosatta E (1998) Theoretical ecosystem ecology—understanding element cycles, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Bao SD (2000) The method of the soil and agriculture chemical analysis. China Agriculture Press, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
- Berg B, McClaugherty C (2008) Plant litter—decomposition, humus formation, carbon sequestration (2nd edition). Springer-Verlag Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
- Chapin FS, Matson PA, Mooney HA (2002) Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Chen DK, Zhou XF, Zhu N (1994) Natural secondary forest—structure, function, dynamic, and management. Northeast Forestry University Press, HarbinGoogle Scholar
- Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC, Amatangelo K, Dorrepaal E, Eviner VT, Godoy O, Hobbie SE, Hoorens B, Kurokawa H, Perez-Harguindeguy N, Quested HM, Santiago LS, Wardle DA, Wright IJ, Aerts R, Allison SD, van Bodegom P, Brovkin V, Chatain A, Callaghan TV, Diaz S, Garnier E, Gurvich DE, Kazakou E, Klein JA, Read J, Reich PB, Soudzilovskaia NA, Vaieretti MV, Westoby M (2008) Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide. Ecol Lett 11:1065–1071PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Eissenstat DM, Volder A (2004) The efficiency of nutrient acquisition over the life of a root. In: BassiriRad H (ed) Nutrient acquisition by plants: an ecological perspective. Ecological studies 191. Springer, New York, pp 185–220Google Scholar
- Gong ZT, Chen ZC, Luo GB, Zhang GL, Zhao WJ (1999) Soil reference with Chinese soil taxonomy. Soils 31:57–63 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
- Silver WL, Miya RK (2001) Global patterns in root decomposition: comparisons of climate and litter quality effects. Oecologia 129:407–419Google Scholar
- Vogt KA, Persson H (1991) Measuring growth and development of roots. In: Lassoie JP, Hinckley TM (eds) Techniques and approaches in forest tree ecophysiology. CRC Press, Boston, pp 477–501Google Scholar