Advertisement

Fungi participate in driving home-field advantage of litter decomposition in a subtropical forest

  • Dunmei Lin
  • Mei Pang
  • Nicolas Fanin
  • Hongjuan Wang
  • Shenhua Qian
  • Liang Zhao
  • Yongchuan Yang
  • Xiangcheng Mi
  • Keping Ma
Regular Article

Abstract

Background and aims

Home-field advantage (HFA) hypothesis predicts that plant litter decomposes faster beneath the plant species from which it was derived than beneath other plant species. However, it remains unclear, which groups of soil organisms drive HFA effects across a wide range of litter quality and forest types.

Methods

We set up a reciprocal transplant decomposition experiment to quantify the HFA effects of broadleaf, coniferous and bamboo litters. Litterbags of different mesh sizes and high-throughput pyrosequencing of microbial rRNA gene were used to test the contribution of different decomposer groups to HFA effect.

Results

The recalcitrant broadleaf litter and the labile bamboo litter exhibited HFA. Presence of meso-and macrofauna did not substantially change the HFA effects. Bacterial and fungal community composition on litters were significantly influenced by litter type. Bacterial community composition remained unchanged when the same litter was decomposed in different forest types, whereas fungal community composition on broadleaf and bamboo litters were significantly influenced by incubation site.

Conclusions

Our data demonstrate specific association between fungal community composition and faster litter decomposition in the home site, suggesting that fungi probably participate in driving the HFA effect of broadleaf and bamboo litters.

Keywords

Home-field advantage Litter-decomposer interactions Litter traits Local adaptation Functional redundancy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Pei Wang and Yan Liu for their help in perparing litterbags, and Zhenxi Lai, Pengpeng Dou and Fang Wang for their help in the field and laboratory. We would also like to thank Alison Beamish at the University of British Columbia for her assistance with English language and grammatical editing of the manuscript, and anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [No. 31500356], Chongqing Research Program of Basic Research and Frontier Technology [No. cstc2016jcyjA0004], Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [No. 2018CDXYCH0014] and the 111 Project [No. B13041].

Supplementary material

11104_2018_3865_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (13 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 12 kb)
11104_2018_3865_MOESM2_ESM.docx (65 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 64 kb)

References

  1. Allison SD, Martiny JBH (2008) Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:11512–11519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin AT, Vivanco L, Gonzalez-Arzac A et al (2014) There's no place like home? An exploration of the mechanisms behind plant litter- decomposer affinity in terrestrial ecosystems. New Phytol 204:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayres E, Steltzer H, Simmons BL, Simpson RT et al (2009a) Home-field advantage accelerates leaf litter decomposition in forests. Soil Biol Biochem 41:606–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayres E, Steltzer H, Berg S et al (2009b) Soil biota accelerate decomposition in high-elevation forests by specializing in the breakdown of litter produced by the plant species above them. J Ecol 97:901–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bardgett RD (2005) The biology of soil: a community and ecosystem approach. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bardgett RD, Whittaker JB, Frankland JC (1993) The diet and food preferences of Onychiurus procampatus (Collembola) from upland grassland soils. Biol Fertil Soils 16:296–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg BR, McClaugherty C (2014) Plant litter: decomposition, humus formation, carbon sequestration, 3rd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B (2014) Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30:2114–2120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradford MA, Tordoff GM, Eggers T et al (2002) Microbiota, fauna, and mesh size interactions in litter decomposition. Oikos 99:317–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cebrian J (1999) Patterns in the fate of production in plant communities. Am Nat 154:449–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chomel M, Guittonny-Larcheveque M, DesRochers A et al (2015) Home field advantage of litter decomposition in pure and mixed plantations under boreal climate. Ecosystems 18:1014–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chomel M, Guittonny-Larcheveque M, Fernandez C et al (2016) Plant secondary metabolites: a key driver of litter decomposition and soil nutrient cycling. J Ecol 104:1527–1541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coq S, Souquet JM, Meudec E et al (2010) Interspecific variation in leaf litter tannins drives decomposition in a tropical rain forest of French Guiana. Ecology 91:2080–2091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crowther TW, Boddy L, Jones TH (2012) Functional and ecological consequences of saprotrophic fungus-grazer interactions. ISME J 6:1992–2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Graaff MA, Classen AT, Castro HF et al (2010) Labile soil carbon inputs mediate the soil microbial community composition and plant residue decomposition rates. New Phytol 188:1055–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delgado-Baquerizo M, Giaramida L, Reich PB et al (2016) Lack of functional redundancy in the relationship between microbial diversity and ecosystem functioning. J Ecol 104:936–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Durall DM, Todd AW, Trappe JM (1994) Decomposition of C-14-labeled substrates by ectomycorrhizal fungi in association with Douglas-fir. New Phytol 127:725–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edgar RC (2013) UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat Methods 10:996–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fanin N, Fromin N, Bertrand I (2016) Functional breadth and home-field advantage generate functional differences among soil microbial decomposers. Ecology 97:1023–1037PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fujii S, Makita N, Mori AS et al (2016) Plant species control and soil faunal involvement in the processes of above- and below-ground litter decomposition. Oikos 125:883–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garcia-Palacios P, Maestre FT, Kattge J et al (2013) Climate and litter quality differently modulate the effects of soil fauna on litter decomposition across biomes. Ecol Lett 16:1045–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gessner MO, Swan CM, Dang CK et al (2010) Diversity meets decomposition. Trends Ecol Evol 25:372–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gholz HL, Wedin DA, Smitherman SM et al (2000) Long-term dynamics of pine and hardwood litter in contrasting environments: toward a global model of decomposition. Glob Chang Biol 6:751–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Giesselmann UC, Martins KG, Brandle M et al (2011) Lack of home-field advantage in the decomposition of leaf litter in the Atlantic rainforest of Brazil. Appl Soil Ecol 49:5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gonzalez G, Seastedt TR (2001) Soil fauna and plant litter decomposition in tropical and subalpine forests. Ecology 82:955–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graça MAS, Bärlocher F, Gessner MO (2005) Methods to study litter decomposition: a practical guide. In: Springer. Dordrecht, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanson CA, Allison SD, Bradford MA et al (2008) Fungal taxa target different carbon sources in forest soil. Ecosystems 11:1157–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hättenschwiler S, Vitousek PM (2000) The role of polyphenols in terrestrial ecosystem nutrient cycling. Trends Ecol Evol 15:238–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hunt HW, Coleman DC, Ingham ER et al (1987) The detrital food web in a shortgrass prairie. Biol Fertil Soils 3:57–68Google Scholar
  30. Jones JB (2001) Laboratory guide for conducting soil tests and plant analysis. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  31. Keiser AD, Keiser DA, Strickland MS et al (2014) Disentangling the mechanisms underlying functional differences among decomposer communities. J Ecol 102:603–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keiser AD, Strickland MS, Fierer N et al (2011) The effect of resource history on the functioning of soil microbial communities is maintained across time. Biogeosciences 8:1477–1486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liaw A, Wiener M (2002) Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2:18–22Google Scholar
  34. Lin DM, Anderson-Teixeira KJ, Lai JS et al (2016) Traits of dominant tree species predict local scale variation in forest aboveground and topsoil carbon stocks. Plant Soil 409:435–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Magoc T, Salzberg SL (2011) FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 27:2957–2963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Makkar HPS (2003) Quantification of tannins in tree and shrub foliage: a laboratory manual. In: Kluwer academic publishers. Dordrecht, BostonGoogle Scholar
  37. McGuire KL, Bent E, Borneman J et al (2010) Functional diversity in resource use by fungi. Ecology 91:2324–2332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McGuire KL, Payne SG, Palmer MI et al (2013) Digging the New York city skyline: soil fungal communities in green roofs and city parks. PLoS One 8:e58020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meentemeyer V (1978) Macroclimate and lignin control of litter decomposition rates. Ecology 59:465–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Melillo JM, Aber JD, Muratore JF (1982) Nitrogen and lignin control of hardwood leaf litter decomposition dynamics. Ecology 63:621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Milcu A, Manning P (2011) All size classes of soil fauna and litter quality control the acceleration of litter decay in its home environment. Oikos 120:1366–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moore TR, Trofymow JA, Taylor B et al (1999) Litter decomposition rates in Canadian forests. Glob Chang Biol 5:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Newell K (1984) Interaction between two decomposer basidiomycetes and a collembolan under Sitka spruce: grazing and its potential effects on fungal distribution and litter decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem 16:235–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M et al (2016) Vegan: community ecology package. R Package Version 2:4–1 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan Google Scholar
  45. Paterson E, Osler G, Dawson LA et al (2008) Labile and recalcitrant plant fractions are utilised by distinct microbial communities in soil: independent of the presence of roots and mycorrhizal fungi. Soil Biol Biochem 40:1103–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Perez G, Aubert M, Decaens T et al (2013) Home-field advantage: a matter of interaction between litter biochemistry and decomposer biota. Soil Biol Biochem 67:245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. R Development Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/
  48. Rousk J, Baath E, Brookes PC et al (2010) Soil bacterial and fungal communities across a pH gradient in an arable soil. ISME J 4:1340–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rousk J, Frey SD (2015) Revisiting the hypothesis that fungal-to-bacterial dominance characterizes turnover of soil organic matter and nutrients. Ecol Monogr 85:457–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. SAS Institute (2010) SAS for Windows, version 9.3. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina. USAGoogle Scholar
  51. Strickland MS, Lauber C, Fierer N et al (2009) Testing the functional significance of microbial community composition. Ecology 90:441–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. St John MG, Orwin KH, Dickie IA (2011) No 'home' versus 'away' effects of decomposition found in a grassland-forest reciprocal litter transplant study. Soil Biol Biochem 43:1482–1489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM (1979) Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  54. Veen GF, Sundqvist MK, Wardle DA (2015) Environmental factors and traits that drive plant litter decomposition do not determine home-field advantage effects. Funct Ecol 29:981–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vivanco L, Austin AT (2008) Tree species identity alters forest litter decomposition through long-term plant and soil interactions in Patagonia, Argentina. J Ecol 96:727–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Voriskova J, Baldrian P (2013) Fungal community on decomposing leaf litter undergoes rapid successional changes. ISME J 7:477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wall DH, Bradford MA, St John MG et al (2008) Global decomposition experiment shows soil animal impacts on decomposition are climate-dependent. Glob Chang Biol 14:2661–2677PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhang DQ, Hui DF, Luo YQ et al (2008) Rates of litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: global patterns and controlling factors. J Plant Ecol 1:85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhou JZ, Deng Y, Shen LN et al (2016) Temperature mediates continental-scale diversity of microbes in forest soils. Nat Commun 7:12083CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of the Three Gorges Reservoir Region’s Eco-Environment, Ministry of EducationChongqing UniversityChongqingChina
  2. 2.Interaction Soil Plant Atmosphere (ISPA), UMR 1391, INRA - Bordeaux Sciences AgroVillenave-d′Ornon cedexFrance
  3. 3.Biotechnology Research CenterChongqing Academy of Agricultural SciencesChongqingChina
  4. 4.National Centre for International Research of Low-carbon and Green Buildings, Ministry of Science & TechnologyChongqing UniversityChongqingChina
  5. 5.State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of BotanyThe Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations