Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 416, Issue 1–2, pp 419–426 | Cite as

Can short-term litter-bag measurements predict long-term decomposition in northern forests?

  • Tim R. MooreEmail author
  • J. A. Trofymow
  • C. E. Prescott
  • B. D. Titus
  • the CIDET Working Group
Regular Article

Abstract

Background and aims

The litter-bag technique has become common in the estimation of the rates of decomposition, but in many cases the bags are incubated for only a short period, raising the issue of the extent to which short-term incubations represent long-term litter decomposition. We addressed this using 12 years of data from the CIDET study.

Methods

The CIDET study involved placement of 10 foliar litters on the soil surface and wood blocks on the soil surface and buried across temperate to subarctic Canada. Bags were retrieved 10 times over 12 years at 19 sites and the residual litter mass determined.

Results

A literature search revealed that 84% of published litter-bag studies in temperate-boreal-subarctic regions were of 3 years duration or less. The strength of the relationship between the mass loss after 1 year and later years at each CIDET site, expressed as the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) among the 12 litters, decreased with length of incubation, reaching an average of only 0.4 after 12 years. The R 2 value was inversely related to mean annual temperature. The single exponential model of mass remaining (k) declined with length of incubation, and the rate of decline varied among litter types and sites. For 3 litters at 19 sites, the 3- and 12-year k values were strongly related.

Conclusions

These results show that caution should be exercised when extrapolating short-term litter-bag studies (e.g. < 3 years), particularly in temperate climates.

Keywords

Litter-bags Decomposition Forest soils Litter Canadian Intersite decomposition experiment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Climate station data were provided by Environment Canada, Atmospheric and Environment Services. We acknowledge all members of the CIDET Working Group, without whom this study and analysis would not have been possible: D. Anderson (University of Saskatchewan, SK), C. Camiré (Université Laval, PQ), L. Duchesne (Canadian Forest Service, ON), J. Fyles (McGill University, PQ), L. Kozak (University of Saskatchewan, SK), M. Kranabetter (Ministry of Forests, BC), I. Morrison (Canadian Forest Service, ON), M. Siltanen (Canadian Forest Service, AB), S. Smith (Agriculture Canada, BC), S. Visser (University of Calgary, AB), R. Wein (University of Alberta, AB), and D. White (Dept. Indian and Northern Affairs, YK). More information on CIDET, including a complete list of publications, is available at: http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/projects/76. The contribution of R. Ferris and other technical staff and students at the Pacific Forestry Centre is gratefully acknowledged. TRM was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We thank B. Berg and an anonymous reviewer for useful comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Adair EC, Parton WJ, Del Grosso J, Silver WL, Harmon ME, Hall SA, Burke ID, Hart SC (2008) Simple three-pool model accurately describes patterns of long-term litter decomposition in diverse climates. Glob Chang Biol 14:2636–2660Google Scholar
  2. Berg B, Ekbohm G (1991) Litter mass-loss rates and decomposition patterns in some needle and leaf litter types. Long-term decomposition in a scots pine forest VII. Can J Bot 69:1449–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradford MA, Berg B, Maynard DS, Wieder WR, Wood SA (2016) Understanding the dominant controls on litter decomposition. J Ecol 104:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cotrufo MF, Soong JL, Horton AJ, Campbell EE, Haddix ML, Wall DH, Parton WJ (2015) Formation of soil organic matter via biochemical and physical pathways of litter mass loss. Nat Geosci 8:776–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Currie WS, Rastetter EB, Parton WJ, Harmon M (1999) Climate and litter quality controls on decomposition: an analysis of modeling approaches. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 13:575–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cusack DF, Chou WW, Yang WH, Harmon ME, Silver WLS, the LIDET team (2009) Controls on long-term root and leaf litter decomposition in neotropical forests. Glob Chang Biol 15:1339–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harmon ME, Silver WL, Fasth B, Chen H, Burke IC, Parton WJ, Hart SC, Currie WS, LIDET (2009) Long-term patterns of mass loss during decomposition of leaf and fine root litter: an intersite comparison. Glob Chang Biol 15:1320–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hobbie SE, Schimel JP, Trumbore SE, Randerson JR (2000) Controls over carbon storage and turnover in high-latitude soils. Glob Chang Biol 6:196–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Latter PM, Howson G, Howard DM, Scott WA (1998) Long-term study of litter decomposition on a Pennine peat bog: which regression? Oecologia 113:94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Manzoni S, Jackson RB, Trofymow JA, Porporato A (2008) The global stoichiometry of litter nitrogen mineralization. Science 321:684–686CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Olson JS (1963) Energy stores and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44:322–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Prescott CE (2005) Do rates of litter decomposition tell us anything we really need to know? For Ecol Man 220:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Prescott CE (2010) Litter decomposition: what controls it and how can we alter it to sequester more carbon in forest soils? Biogeochemistry 101:133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Prescott CE, Zabek LM, Staley CL, Kabzems R (2000) Decomposition of broadleaf and needle litter in forests of British Columbia: influences of litter type, forest type and litter mixtures. Can J For Res 30:1742–1750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Smyth CE, Trofymow JA, Kurz WA, CIDET Working Group (2010) Decreasing uncertainty in CBM-CFS3 estimates of forest soil C sources and sinks through use of long-term data from the Canadian Intersite decomposition experiment. Information report BC-X-422. Canadian Forest Service, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  16. Trofymow JA, CIDET Working Group (1998) CIDET – the Canadian Intersite decomposition experiment: project and site establishment report. Victoria: Inf. Rep. BC-X-378, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service (http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications?id=5030)
  17. Trofymow JA, Moore TR, Titus B, Prescott C, Morrison I, Siltanen M, Smith S, Fyles J, Wein R, Camiré C, Duschene L, Kozak L, Kranabetter M, Visser S (2002) Rates of litter decomposition over 6 years in Canadian forests: influence of litter quality and climate. Can J For Res 32:789–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tuomi M, Thum T, Järvinen H, Fronzek S, Berg B, Harmon ME, Trofymow JA, Sevanto S, Liski Y (2009) Leaf litter decomposition - estimates of global variability based on Yasso07 model. Ecol Model 220:3362–3371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zhang CF, Meng FR, Bhatti JS, Trofymow J, Arp P (2008) Forest litter decomposition and N mineralization rates in leaf-litterbags, placed across Canada: a 5-model comparison. Ecol Model 219:342–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim R. Moore
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. A. Trofymow
    • 2
    • 3
  • C. E. Prescott
    • 4
  • B. D. Titus
    • 2
  • the CIDET Working Group
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Global Environmental and Climate Change CentreMcGill UniversityQCCanada
  2. 2.Natural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceVictoriaCanada
  3. 3.Department BiologyUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  4. 4.Department of Forest and Conservation SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations