Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 430, Issue 1–2, pp 59–71 | Cite as

Do litter-mediated plant-soil feedbacks influence Mediterranean oak regeneration? A two-year pot experiment

  • Jordane Gavinet
  • Bernard Prévosto
  • Anne Bousquet-Melou
  • Raphaël Gros
  • Elodie Quer
  • Virginie Baldy
  • Catherine Fernandez
Regular Article

Abstract

Background & Aims

Oak seedling establishment is difficult and may be partly explained by litter-mediated interactions with neighbors. Litter effects can be physical or chemical and result in positive or negative feedback effects for seedlings. Mediterranean species leaves contain high levels of secondary metabolites which suggest that negative litter effects could be important.

Methods

Seedlings of Quercus ilex and Quercus pubescens were grown for two years in pots with natural soil and litter inputs from 6 Mediterranean woody species, artificial litter (only physical effect) or bare soil.

Results

Litter types had highly different mass loss (41–80%), which correlated with soil organic C, total N and microbial activity. Litter of Q. pubescens increased soil humidity and oak seedlings aerial biomass. Litters of Cotinus coggygria and Rosmarinus officinalis, containing high quantities of phenolics and terpenes respectively, decomposed fast and led to specific soil microbial catabolic profiles but did not influence oak seedling growth, chemistry or mycorrhization rates.

Conclusions

Physical litter effects through improved soil humidity seem to be predominant for oak seedling development. Despite high litter phenolics content, we detected no chemical effects on oak seedlings. Litter traits conferring a higher ability to retain soil moisture in dry periods deserve further attention as they may be critical to explain plant-soil feedbacks in Mediterranean ecosystems.

Keywords

Litter effects Allelopathy Soil microorganisms Secondary metabolites Litter traits 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR) through the SecPriMe2 project (ANR-12-BSV7-0016-01) and Irstea/PACA Region for PhD funding of Jordane Gavinet. The authors thank Patrice Brahic and the National Forest Office (ONF) for help with nursery maintenance, Caroline Lecareux for secondary metabolites analysis, Sylvie Dupouyet, Roland Estève, Jean-Michel Lopez for continued technical assistance and other members of the DFME and RECOVER teams for their technical help.

Supplementary material

11104_2018_3711_MOESM1_ESM.docx (34 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 33 kb)

References

  1. Alías JC, Sosa T, Escudero JC, Chaves N (2006) Autotoxicity against germination and seedling emergence in Cistus ladanifer L. Plant Soil 282:327–332.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-005-6066-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alrababah MA, Tadros MJ, Samarah NH, Ghosheh H (2009) Allelopathic effects of Pinus halepensis and Quercus coccifera on the germination of Mediterranean crop seeds. New For 38:261–272.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-009-9145-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanco JA (2007) The representation of allelopathy in ecosystem-level forest models. Ecol Model 209:65–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.06.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonanomi G, Sicurezza MG, Caporaso S, Esposito A, Mazzoleni S (2006) Phytotoxicity dynamics of decaying plant materials. New Phytol 169:571–578.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01611.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonanomi G, Incerti G, Barile E, Capodilupo M, Antignani V, Mingo A, Lanzotti V, Scala F, Mazzoleni S (2011) Phytotoxicity, not nitrogen immobilization, explains plant litter inhibitory effects: evidence from solid-state 13C NMR spectroscopy. New Phytol 191:1018–1030.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03765.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonanomi G, Cesarano G, Lombardi N, Motti R, Scala F, Mazzoleni S, Incerti G (2017) Litter chemistry explains contrasting feeding preferences of bacteria, fungi, and higher plants. Sci Rep 7:9208.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09145-w CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowman WD, Steltzer H, Rosenstiel TN, Cleveland CC, Meier CL (2004) Litter effects of two co-occurring alpine species on plant growth, microbial activity and immobilization of nitrogen. Oikos 104:336–344.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12721.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brearley FQ, Press MC, Scholes JD (2003) Nutrients obtained from leaf litter can improve the growth of dipterocarp seedlings. New Phytol 160:101–110.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00851.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broncano MJ, Riba M, Retana J (1998) Seed germination and seedling performance of two Mediterranean tree species, holm oak (shape Quercus ilex L.) and Aleppo pine (shape Pinus halepensis mill.): a multifactor experimental approach. Plant Ecol 138:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brooker RW, Callaghan TV (1998) The balance between positive and negative plant interactions and its relationship to environmental gradients: a model. Oikos 81:196.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3546481 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carrera AL, Vargas DN, Campanella MV, Bertiller MB, Sain CL, Mazzarino MJ (2005) Soil nitrogen in relation to quality and decomposability of plant litter in the Patagonian Monte, Argentina. Plant Ecol 181:139–151.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-005-5322-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chomel M, Fernandez C, Bousquet-Mélou A, Gers C, Monnier Y, Santonja M, Gauquelin T, Gros R, Lecareux C, Baldy V (2014) Secondary metabolites of Pinus halepensis alter decomposer organisms and litter decomposition during afforestation of abandoned agricultural zones. J Ecol 102:411–424.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chomel M, Guittonny-Larchevêque M, Fernandez C, Gallet C, DesRochers A, Paré D, Jackson BG, Baldy V (2016) Plant secondary metabolites: a key driver of litter decomposition and soil nutrient cycling. J Ecol 104:1527–1541.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connell JH, Slatyer RO (1977) Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. Am Nat 111:1119–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Demey A, Staelens J, Baeten L, Boeckx P, Hermy M, Kattge J, Verheyen K (2013) Nutrient input from hemiparasitic litter favors plant species with a fast-growth strategy. Plant Soil 371:53–66.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-013-1658-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Donath TW, Eckstein RL (2008) Grass and oak litter exert different effects on seedling emergence of herbaceous perennials from grasslands and woodlands. J Ecol 96:272–280.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01338.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dorrepaal E, Cornelissen JHC, Aerts R (2007) Changing leaf litter feedbacks on plant production across contrasting sub-arctic peatland species and growth forms. Oecologia 151:251–261.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-006-0580-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ehlers BK (2011) Soil microorganisms alleviate the Allelochemical effects of a thyme monoterpene on the performance of an associated grass species. PLoS One 6:e26321.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026321 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Espelta JM, Cortés P, Molowny-Horas R, Sánchez-Humanes B, Retana J (2008) Masting mediated by summer drought reduces acorn predation in Mediterranean oak forests. Ecology 89:805–817.  https://doi.org/10.1890/07-0217.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Facelli JM, Pickett STA (1991a) Plant litter: its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. Bot Rev 57:1–32.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02858763 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Facelli JM, Pickett STA (1991b) Plant litter: light interception and effects on an old-field plant community. Ecology 72:1024–1031.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1940602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fanin N, Hättenschwiler S, Fromin N (2014) Litter fingerprint on microbial biomass, activity, and community structure in the underlying soil. Plant Soil 379:79–91.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2051-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fernandez C, Voiriot S, Mévy J-P, Vila B, Ormeño E, Dupouyet S, Bousquet-Mélou A (2008) Regeneration failure of Pinus halepensis mill.: the role of autotoxicity and some abiotic environmental parameters. For Ecol Manag 255:2928–2936.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fernandez C, Santonja M, Gros R, Monnier Y, Chomel M, Baldy V, Bousquet-Mélou A (2013) Allelochemicals of Pinus halepensis as drivers of biodiversity in Mediterranean open mosaic habitats during the colonization stage of secondary succession. J Chem Ecol 39:298–311.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-013-0239-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Fernandez C, Monnier Y, Santonja M, Gallet C, Weston LA, Prévosto B, Saunier A, Baldy V, Bousquet-Mélou A (2016) The impact of competition and allelopathy on the trade-off between plant defense and growth in two contrasting tree species. Front Plant Sci 7.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00594
  26. Fischer NH, Williamson GB, Weidenhamer JD, Richardson DR (1994) In search of allelopathy in the Florida scrub: the role of terpenoids. J Chem Ecol 20:1355–1380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Fowler NL (1986) Microsite requirements for germination and establishment of three grass species. Am Midl Nat 115:131–145.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2425843 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ganade G, Brown VK (2002) Succession in old pastures of Central Amazonia: role of soil fertility and plant litter. Ecology 83:743–754.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Garland JL, Mills AL (1991) Classification and characterization of heterotrophic microbial communities on the basis of patterns of community-level sole-carbon-source utilization. Appl Environ Microbiol 57:2351–2359PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Giovannetti M, Mosse B (1980) An evaluation of techniques for measuring vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal infection in roots. New Phytol 84:489–500.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1980.tb04556.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gómez JM (2003) Spatial patterns in long-distance dispersal of Quercus ilex acorns by jays in a heterogeneous landscape. Ecography 26:573–584.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0587.2003.03586.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gómez-Aparicio L, Zamora R, Gómez JM, Hódar JA, Castro J, Baraza E (2004) Applying plant facilitation to forest restoration: a meta-analysis of the use of shrubs as nurse plants. Ecol Appl 14:1128–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hättenschwiler S, Jørgensen HB (2010) Carbon quality rather than stoichiometry controls litter decomposition in a tropical rain forest. J Ecol 98:754–763.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01671.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hättenschwiler S, Vitousek PM (2000) The role of polyphenols in terrestrial ecosystem nutrient cycling. Trends Ecol Evol 15:238–243.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01861-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Holmgren M, Scheffer M, Huston MA (1997) The interplay of facilitation and competition in plant communities. Ecology 78:1966.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2265937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Inderjit (2005) Soil microorganisms: an important determinant of Allelopathic activity. Plant Soil 274:227–236.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-004-0159-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Inderjit, Weiner J (2001) Plant allelochemical interference or soil chemical ecology? Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 4:3–12.  https://doi.org/10.1078/1433-8319-00011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jensen K, Gutekunst K (2003) Effects of litter on establishment of grassland plant species: the role of seed size and successional status. Basic Appl Ecol 4:579–587.  https://doi.org/10.1078/1439-1791-00179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaur H, Kaur R, Kaur S, Baldwin IT, Inderjit (2009) Taking ecological function seriously: soil microbial communities can obviate Allelopathic effects of released metabolites. PLoS One 4:e4700.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004700 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Kuiters AT (1990) Role of phenolic substances from decomposing forest litter in plant–soil interactions. Acta Bot Neerlandica 39:329–348.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.1990.tb01412.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Langenheim JH (1994) Higher plant terpenoids: a phytocentric overview of their ecological roles. J Chem Ecol 20:1223–1280.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02059809 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Leiva MJ, Mancilla-Leyton JM, MartínVicente Á (2015) Differences in the facilitative ability of two Mediterranean shrubs on holm-oak seedling recruitment in Mediterranean savanna-forest ecosystems. Ecol Eng 82:349–354.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.05.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Li JQ, Romane FJ (1997) Effects of germination inhibition on the dynamics of Quercus ilex stands. J Veg Sci 8:287–294.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3237358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lopez-Iglesias B, Olmo M, Gallardo A, Villar R (2014) Short-term effects of litter from 21 woody species on plant growth and root development. Plant Soil 381:177–191.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2109-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lortie CJ, Brooker RW, Choler P, Kikvidze Z, Michalet R, Pugnaire FI, Callaway RM (2004) Rethinking plant community theory. Oikos 107:433–438.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.13250.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Loydi A, Eckstein RL, Otte A, Donath TW (2013) Effects of litter on seedling establishment in natural and semi-natural grasslands: a meta-analysis. J Ecol 101:454–464.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mallik A, Zhu H (1995) Overcoming allelopathic growth-inhibition by mycorrhizal inoculation. In: Inderjit A, KMM D, Einhellig FA (eds) Allelopathy: organisms, processes, and applications. Amer Chemical Soc, Washington, pp 39–57Google Scholar
  48. Marčetić M, Božić D, Milenković M, Malešević N, Radulović S, Kovačević N (2013) Antimicrobial, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity of young shoots of the smoke tree, Cotinus coggygria Scop. Phytother Res 27:1658–1663.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.4919 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Mazzoleni S, Bonanomi G, Incerti G, Chiusano ML, Termolino P, Mingo A, Senatore M, Giannino F, Cartenì F, Rietkerk M, Lanzotti V (2015) Inhibitory and toxic effects of extracellular self-DNA in litter: a mechanism for negative plant–soil feedbacks? New Phytol 205:1195–1210.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13121 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Meiners SJ (2014) Functional correlates of allelopathic potential in a successional plant community. Plant Ecol 215:661–672.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-014-0331-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Meiners SJ, Kong C-H, Ladwig LM, Pisula NL, Lang KA (2012) Developing an ecological context for allelopathy. Plant Ecol 213:1221–1227.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-012-0078-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Miglioretti F (1987) Ecologie et dendrométrie des peuplements purs et mélanges de chêne vert (Quercus ilex L. ) et chêne pubescent (Quercus pubescens WILLD. ) en Provence : bases méthodologiques, modèles de croissance et reproduction (application à la forêt de la Gardiole de Rians, Var). Aix-Marseille 3Google Scholar
  53. Molofsky J, Augspurger CK (1992) The effect of leaf litter on early seedling establishment in a tropical Forest. Ecology 73:68–77.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1938721 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Monnier Y, Prévosto B, Ripert C, Corbani AC, Fernandez C (2012) Forest microhabitats differentially influence seedling phenology of two co-existing Mediterranean oak species. J Veg Sci 23:260–270.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2011.01358.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Montgomery RA, Reich PB, Palik BJ (2010) Untangling positive and negative biotic interactions: views from above and below ground in a forest ecosystem. Ecology 91:3641–3655.  https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1663.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Navarro-Cano JA, Barberá GG, Castillo VM (2010) Pine litter from Afforestations hinders the establishment of endemic plants in semiarid scrubby habitats of Natura 2000 network. Restor Ecol 18:165–169.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00606.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nektarios PA, Economou G, Avgoulas C (2005) Allelopathic effects of Pinus halepensis needles on turfgrasses and biosensor plants. HortScience 40:246–250Google Scholar
  58. Ormeño E, Baldy V, Ballini C, Larchevêque M, Périssol C, Fernandez C (2006) Effects of environmental factors and leaf chemistry on leaf litter colonization by fungi in a Mediterranean shrubland. Pedobiologia 50:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2005.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Perez-Moreno J, Read DJ (2000) Mobilization and transfer of nutrients from litter to tree seedlings via the vegetative mycelium of ectomycorrhizal plants. New Phytol 145:301–309.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2000.00569.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pérez-Ramos IM, Marañón T (2008) Factors affecting post-dispersal seed predation in two coexisting oak species: microhabitat, burial and exclusion of large herbivores. For Ecol Manag 255:3506–3514.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.02.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Preston-Mafham J, Boddy L, Randerson PF (2002) Analysis of microbial community functional diversity using sole-carbon-source utilisation profiles – a critique. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 42:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2002.tb00990.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Prévosto B, Gavinet J, Monnier Y, Corbani A, Fernandez C (2016) Influence of neighbouring woody treatments on Mediterranean oak development in an experimental plantation: better form but weaker growth. For Ecol Manag 362:89–98.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.11.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Quested H, Eriksson O (2006) Litter species composition influences the performance of seedlings of grassland herbs. Funct Ecol 20:522–532.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2006.01131.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Quested HM, Press MC, Callaghan TV (2003) Litter of the hemiparasite Bartsia alpina enhances plant growth: evidence for a functional role in nutrient cycling. Oecologia 135:606–614.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1225-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Quézel P, Médail F (2003) Ecologie et biogéographie des forêts du bassin méditerranéen. Elsevier, ParisGoogle Scholar
  66. Sayer EJ (2005) Using experimental manipulation to assess the roles of leaf litter in the functioning of forest ecosystems. Biol Rev 81:1.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006846 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schlatterer EF, Tisdale EW (1969) Effects of litter of Artemisia, Chrysothamnus, and Tortula on germination and growth of three perennial grasses. Ecology 50:869–873.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1933701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Scognamiglio M, D’Abrosca B, Esposito A, Pacifico S, Monaco P, Fiorentino A (2013) Plant growth inhibitors: allelopathic role or phytotoxic effects? Focus on Mediterranean biomes. Phytochem Rev 12:803–830.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-013-9281-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sydes C, Grime JP (1981) Effects of tree leaf litter on herbaceous vegetation in deciduous woodland: II. An experimental investigation. J Ecol 69:249–262.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2259829 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. van der Putten WH, Bardgett RD, Bever JD, Bezemer TM, Casper BB, Fukami T, Kardol P, Klironomos JN, Kulmatiski A, Schweitzer JA, Suding KN, van de Voorde TFJ, Wardle DA (2013) Plant–soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. J Ecol 101:265–276.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vilà M, Sardans J (1999) Plant competition in mediterranean-type vegetation. J Veg Sci 10:281–294.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3237150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Violle C, Richarte J, Navas M-L (2006) Effects of litter and standing biomass on growth and reproduction of two annual species in a Mediterranean old-field. J Ecol 94:196–205.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01061.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vokou D, Chalkos D, Karamanlidou G, Yiangou M (2002) Activation of soil respiration and shift of the microbial population balance in soil as a response to Lavandula stoechas essential oil. J Chem Ecol 28:755–768.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015236709767 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Xiong S, Nilsson C (1999) The effects of plant litter on vegetation: a meta-analysis. J Ecol 87:984–994.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2648387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zeng RS, Mallik AU (2006) Selected ectomycorrhizal Fungi of black spruce (Picea mariana) can detoxify phenolic compounds of Kalmia angustifolia. J Chem Ecol 32:1473–1489.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-006-9063-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies pour l’environnement et l’agriculture (Irstea), UR RECOVERAix en ProvenceFrance
  2. 2.Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d’Écologie marine et continentale (IMBE), CNRS, IRD, Avignon Université, UMR 7263Aix Marseille UniversitéMarseille Cedex 3France

Personalised recommendations