Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 434, Issue 1–2, pp 379–395 | Cite as

Decomposition processes interacting with microtopography maintain ecosystem heterogeneity in a subalpine grassland

  • L. OddiEmail author
  • L. Celi
  • E. Cremonese
  • G. Filippa
  • M. Galvagno
  • G. Palestini
  • C. Siniscalco
Regular Article
  • 62 Downloads

Abstract

Aims

Grasslands are among the largest ecosystems in the world and store up to 30% of the global reserves of carbon. Decomposition processes have a crucial role in maintaining carbon balance, but few studies have investigated the heterogeneity of this process at small scale, especially in alpine ecosystems. We aimed at investigating the interactions between decomposition and environmental heterogeneity at microscale (i.e. elevation gradient <1 m) in a subalpine grassland on the western Italian Alps characterised by the presence of parallel hummock and hollow areas.

Methods

In the study area we monitored microenvironmental drivers (soil temperature and soil water content), plant distribution and decomposition. The latter was studied through a litter bags approach followed by elemental analysis, 13C NMR and FT-IR spectroscopies.

Results

Microtopography exerted a direct and indirect control over litter decomposition by affecting plant species distribution and microclimatic conditions. The different elemental and biochemical properties of plants, interacting with microtopography, led to a higher decomposition rate of forb than grass litter, and in hollow than in hummock areas. The observed differences were both quanti- and qualitative.

Conclusions

Decomposition processes bridge the gap between plant community structure and ecosystem functioning, determining a feedback mechanism that maintains ecosystem heterogeneity at the microscale.

Keywords

Forbs and grasses FT-IR Litter bags Litter chemistry Nardus stricta NMR 

Notes

Acknowledgements

A special thanks to Valentina Mello, Roberta Negri and Guido Teppa for their help during field work, to Marco Prati for his kind support in the lab, and to Compagnia San Paolo for funding my PhD project.

Supplementary material

11104_2018_3842_MOESM1_ESM.docx (282 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 282 kb)
11104_2018_3842_MOESM2_ESM.docx (211 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 211 kb)

References

  1. Aerts R (1997) Climate, leaf litter chemistry and leaf litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: a triangular relationship. Oikos 79:439–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almendros G, Dorado J, Gonzales-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
  3. Anderson JM (1991) The effects of climate change on decomposition process in grassland and coniferous forests. Ecol Appl 1:326–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baer SG, Blair JM, Collins SL, Knapp AK (2004) Plant community responses to resource availability and heterogeneity during restoration. Oecologia 139:617–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baptist F, Yoccoz NG, Choler P (2010) Direct and indirect control by snow cover over decomposition in alpine tundra along a snowmelt gradient. Plant Soil 328:397–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beatty SW, Stone EL (1986) The variety of soil micro-sites created by tree falls. Can J For Res 16:539–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg B, McClaugherty C (2014) Plant litter. Decomposition, humus formation, carbon sequestration, Third edn. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonifacio E, Petrillo M, Petrell F, Tambone F, Celi L (2015) Alien red oak affects soil organic matter cycling and nutrient availability in low-fertility well-developed soils. Plant Soil 395:215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradshaw AD, Lodge RW, Jowett D, Chadwick MJ (1964) Experimental investigations into the mineral nutrition of several grass species: IV. Nitrogen Level J Ecol 52:665–676Google Scholar
  10. Bragazza L, Alber R, Gerdol R (1999) Chemistry of pore water in hummocks and hollows in a poor mire in the southern Alps (Italy). WETLANDS 18:320–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bragazza L, Siffi C, Iacumin P, Gerdol R (2007) Mass loss and nutrient release during litter decay in peatland: the role of microbial adaptability to litter chemistry. Soil Biol Biochem 39:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Britton AJ, Helliwell RC, Lilly A, Dawson L, Fisher JM, Coull M, Ross J (2011) An integrated assessment of ecosystem carbon pools and fluxes across an oceanic alpine toposequence. Plant Soil 345:287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bryant DM, Holland EA, Seastedt TR, Walker MD (1998) Analysis of decomposition in alpine tundra. Can J Bot 76:1295–1304Google Scholar
  14. Celi L, Schnitzer M, Nègre M (1997) Analysis of carboxyl groups in soil humic acids by a wet chemical method, Fourier-transform infrared spectrophotometry, and solution-state carbon-13 nuclear magnetic resonance. A comparative study. Soil Sci 162:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chadwick MJ (1960) Nardus stricta L. J Ecol 48:255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cornelissen JHC (1996) An experimental comparison of leaf decomposition rates in a wide range of temperate plant species and types. J Ecol 84:573–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cornelissen JHC, Thompson K (1997) Functional leaf attributes predict litter decomposition rate in herbaceous plants. New Phytol 135:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cornelissen JHC, Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Díaz S, Grime JP, Marzano B, Cabido M, Vendramini F, Cerabolini B (1999) Leaf structure and defence control litter decomposition rate across species and life forms in regional floras on two continents. New Phytol 143:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Coulon J (1923) Nardus stricta. Étude physiologique, anatomique, et embryologique. Mem Soc vaud Sci nat 6:245–332Google Scholar
  20. De Deyn GB, Cornelissen JHC, Bardgett RD (2008) Plant functional traits and soil carbon sequestration in contrasting biomes. Ecol Lett 11:516–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deák B, Valkó O, Török P, Kelemen A, Miglécz T, Szabó S, Szabó G, Tóthmérész B (2015) Micro-topographic heterogeneity increases plant diversity in old stages of restored grasslands. Basic Appl Ecol 16:291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dwyer LM, Merriam G (1981) Influence of topographic heterogeneity on deciduous litter decomposition. Oikos 37:228–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elliott CL, Snyder H (1991) Autoclave-induced digestion for the colorimetric determination of silicon in Rice straw. J Agric Food Chem 39:1118–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Epstein HE, Burke IC, Lauenroth WK (2002) Regional Patterns of Decomposition and Primary Production Rates in the U.S. Great Plains. Ecology 83:320–327.Google Scholar
  25. Eswaran H, van den Berg E, Reich P (1993) Organic carbon in soils of the world. Soil Sci Soc Am J 57:192–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Galvagno M, Wohlfahrt G, Cremonese E, Rossini M, Colombo R, Filippa G, Julitta T (2013) Phenology and carbon dioxide source/sink strength of a subalpine grassland in response to an exceptionally short snow season. Environ Res Lett 8:025008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gavazov KS (2010) Dynamics of alpine plant litter decomposition in a changing climate. Plant Soil 337:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gerola FM, Gerola DU (1951-1954) Ricerche sui pascoli delle Alpi centro-orientali. Le praterie dell’Altipiano di Asiago, Museo Storia Naturale Venezia TridentinaGoogle Scholar
  29. Grab SW (2005) Aspects of geomorphology, genesis and environmental significance of earth hummocks (thúfur, pounus): miniature cryogenic mounds. Prog Phys Geogr 29:139–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Güsewell S, Jewell PL, Edwards PJ (2005) Effects of heterogeneous habitat use by cattle on nutrient availability and litter decomposition in soils of an alpine pasture. Plant Soil 268:135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hättenschwiler S, Tiunov AV, Scheu S (2005) Biodiversity and litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:191–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hook PB, Burke IC, Lauenroth WK (1991) Heterogeneity of soil and plant N and C associated with individual plants and openings in north American shortgrass steppe. Plant Soil 138:247–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jefferies RL, Walker NA, Edwards KA, Dainty J (2010) Is the decline of soil microbial biomass in late winter coupled to changes in the physical of cold soils? Soil Biol Biochem 42:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kögel-Knabner I (2000) Analytical approaches for characterizing soil organic matter. Org Geochem 31:609–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kögel-Knabner I (2002) The macromolecular organic composition of plant and microbial residues as inputs to soil organic matter. Soil Biol Biochem 34:139–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koukoura Z, Mamolos AP, Kalburtji KL (2003) Decomposition of dominant plant species litter in a semi-arid grassland. Appl Soil Ecol 23:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lavelle P, Blanchart E, Martin A, Spain A, Toutain F, Barois I, Schaefer R (1993) A hierarchical model for decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: application to soils of the humid tropics. Biotropica 25:130–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leith H (1978) Pattern of primary productivity in the biosphere. Hutchinson & Ross, StroudsbergGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller NG, Alpert P (1984) Plant association and edaphic features of a high arctic mesotopographic setting. Arctic Alpine Res 16:11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moser K, Ahn C, Noe G (2007) Characterization of microtopography and its influence on vegetation patterns in created wetlands. Wetlands 27:1081–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Lear HA, Seastedt TR (1994) Landscape patterns of litter decomposition in alpine tundra. Oecologia 99:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Olson JS (1963) Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44:323–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Piccolo A, Stevenson FJ (1982) Infrared spectra of Cu2+ Pb2+ and Ca2+ complexes of soil humic substances. Geoderma 27:195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pintaldi E, D’Amico ME, Siniscalco C, Cremonese E, Celi L, Filippa G, Prati M, Freppaz M (2016) Hummocks affect soil properties and soil-vegetation relationships in a subalpine grassland (North-Western Italian Alps). Catena 145:214–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. R Development Core Team. R (2005) A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org
  46. Raich JW, Schlesinger WH (1992) The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration and its relationship to vegetation and climate. Tellus 44B:81–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Risch AC, Jurgensen MF, Frank DA (2007) Effects of grazing and soil micro-climate on decomposition rates in a spatio-temporally heterogeneous grassland. Plant Soil 298:191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rose JP, Malanson GP (2012) Microtopographic heterogeneity constrains alpine plant diversity, glacier National Park, MT. Plant Ecol 213:955–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saccone P, Morin S, Baptist F, Bonneville JM, Colace MP, Domine F, Faure M, Geremia R, Lochet J, Poly F, Lavorel S, Clément JC (2013) The effects of snowpack properties and plants strategies on litter decomposition during winter in subalpine meadows. Plant Soil 363:215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sanaullah M, Rumpel C, Charrier X, Chabbi A (2012) How does drought stress influence the decomposition of plant litter with contrasting quality in a grassland ecosystem? Plant Soil 352:277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Santonja M, Fernandez C, Gauquelin T, Baldy V (2015) Climate change effects on litter decomposition: intensive drought leads to a strong decrease of litter mixture interactions. Plant Soil 393:69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schaller J, Roscher C, Hillebrand H, Weigelt A, Oelmann Y, Wilcke W, Ebeling A, Weisser WW (2016) Oecologia 18:277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schlesinger WH, Reynolds JR, Cunningham JL, Huenneke LF, Jarrell WM, Virginia RA, Whitford WG (1990) Biological measurements feedbacks in global desertification. Science 247:1043–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Seastedt TR, Walker MD, Bryant DM (2001) Controls on decomposition processes in alpine tundra. In: Bowman WD, Seastedt TR (eds) Structure and function of an alpine ecosystem: Niwot ridge. Colorado. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 222–236Google Scholar
  55. Sebastiá MT (2004) Role of topography and soils in grassland structuring at the landscape and community scales. Basic Appl Ecol 5:331–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Seddon AWR, Macias-Fauria M, Long PR, Benz D, Willis KJ (2016) Sensitivity of global terrestrial ecosystems to climate variability. Nature 531:229–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sharp RP (1942) Soil structures in the St. Elias range, Yukon territory. Geomorphology 5:274–301Google Scholar
  58. Socrates G (2004) Infrared and Raman characteristic group frequencies: tables and harts. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., EnglandGoogle Scholar
  59. Spaccini R, Mbagwu JSC, Conte P, Piccolo A (2006) Changes of humic substances characteristics from forested to cultivated soils in Ethiopia. Geoderma 132:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Suttie JM, Reynolds SG, Batello C (2005) Grasslands of the world. FAO, Plant production and protection series, No. 34Google Scholar
  61. Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM (1979) Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  62. Tilman D (1993) Species richness of experimental productivity gradients: how important is colonization limitation? Ecology 74:2179–2191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tutin TG, Heywood VH, Burges NA, Moore DM, Valentine DH, Walters SM, Webb DA (1964–1980) Flora Europea. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  64. Yu FH, Schütz M, Page-Dumroese DS, Krüsi BO, Schneller J, Wildi O, Risch AC (2011) Carex sempervirens tussocks induce spatial heterogeneity in litter decomposition, but not in soil properties, in a subalpine grassland in the Central Alps. Flora 206:373–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Life Sciences and Systems BiologyUniversity of TorinoTurinItaly
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural, Forestry and Food SciencesUniversity of TorinoGrugliascoItaly
  3. 3.Environmental Protection Agency of Aosta Valley (ARPA VdA)Saint-ChristopheItaly

Personalised recommendations